View Full Version : Jason Grimsley probed by Feds for steroids.
NYDCYankee
06-10-06, 11:06 AM
I don't buy the "what if" stuff, but there's one signficant flaw in your Damon comparison...
What? Don't leave me hanging brother.
NYDCYankee
06-10-06, 11:07 AM
Players in all sports were bigger in the 80s than the 60s, too, though. Not sure how to separate out the effects of steroids and other illegal drugs versus everything else causing players, and people in general, to get bigger. But it isn't just steroids.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But with the rampant steriod/HGH abuse going on, every one of these guys looks very suspicious.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 11:10 AM
...Also I think you should note that David Ortiz went SIX years in the major leagues before he hit 20 homeruns, when he hit it in 20002. In 2003 he hit 31, 2004 41, 2005 47. Quite a burst after a such a long lull. But he always was a good hitter.....
This is misleading, at best. Two of those "six years in the major leagues" involved more than 400 ABs, and that stretch started when he was 22 and played 15 games in the bigs. His 3 last seasons in Minn, he hit 10HRs, 18HRs and 20HRs, in 415, 303 and 412 ABs. To then jump to 31, in 448ABs, in Fenway, in a better lineup, at the age of 27, isn't unfathomable.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 11:11 AM
What? Don't leave me hanging brother.
Giambi used. Damon has had rumors, nothing more. You can't compare a guy who used to a guy who might have. If it comes out that Damon was using, yeah, perfectly valid comparison.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 11:13 AM
Maybe. Maybe not.
But with the rampant steriod/HGH abuse going on, every one of these guys looks very suspicious.
No offense, but there's no "maybe not" about it. People have been getting bigger, players in all sports have been getting bigger. And most people, and most athletes, aren't using steroids.
I agree, though, that all players now are under a cloud of suspicion.
NYDCYankee
06-10-06, 11:25 AM
Giambi used. Damon has had rumors, nothing more. You can't compare a guy who used to a guy who might have. If it comes out that Damon was using, yeah, perfectly valid comparison.
Agreed. I was just making an argument for comparison sake. He was saying that since Giambi was using the Red Sox should have one the game, which is a crock. Should all of a sudden the Red Sox have an asterik next to their championship season if anyone on the 04' team is found to have used. No. Because that is stupid.
But that is what Anibel wants next to the Yankees accomplishments.
NYDCYankee
06-10-06, 11:28 AM
No offense, but there's no "maybe not" about it. People have been getting bigger, players in all sports have been getting bigger. And most people, and most athletes, aren't using steroids.
I agree, though, that all players now are under a cloud of suspicion.
I peronsally think all these players are getting bigger because of HGH. It is true that we are getting bigger as a society, but that is over the course of hundreds of years. Not a ten year span.
But you hit on my point. All these guys are under suspicion.
And thanks to the Grimsleys and Sanchezes and Lawtons everyone from AAA to the HOF is under suspicion.
Agreed. I was just making an argument for comparison sake. He was saying that since Giambi was using the Red Sox should have one the game, which is a crock. Should all of a sudden the Red Sox have an asterik next to their championship season if anyone on the 04' team is found to have used. No. Because that is stupid.
But that is what Anibel wants next to the Yankees accomplishments.
Agreed. That's why I don't think we should view team accomplishments the same way as individual accomplishments during the steroids era. I don't think it's being pessimistic to say that every team in the steroid era had users, so in it's own corrupt way, the field was still somewhat level.
If we start to question team victories in the wake of one player being outed, we won't be able to take any victory seriously. Unless there is an extreme situation, like it's somehow proven that one team had everybody juicing, it's no use playing "what if".
Call me a pessimist, I view myself as a realist, but eventually there will be other members of the Yankee's recent dynasty outed, as well as members of the 2004 Sox.
Would that make me look at those players differently--sure. Would it make me look at the team differently, not really.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 11:53 AM
Just for the sake of the arguement, I believe Giambi said in his Grand Jury testimony that he quit the roids in 2002. That means he was clean in 2003. I know he could have been lying but why lie about that detail and throw himself in front of the bus on everything else?
Workhorse
06-10-06, 12:05 PM
Just for the sake of the arguement, I believe Giambi said in his Grand Jury testimony that he quit the roids in 2002. That means he was clean in 2003. I know he could have been lying but why lie about that detail and throw himself in front of the bus on everything else?
That one's easy.
Because he signed his gigantic free agent contract with the Yankees in 2002. The same reason Giambi issued that "non-admission admission" about steroids at that ridiculous press conference is the same reason why he has invented this particular cutoff date: He was deathly afraid that the Yankees would void his contract.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 12:11 PM
That one's easy.
Because he signed his gigantic free agent contract with the Yankees in 2002. The same reason Giambi issued that "non-admission admission" about steroids at that ridiculous press conference is the same reason why he has invented this particular cutoff date: He was deathly afraid that the Yankees would void his contract.
Could be but if he were going to lie to the Grand Jury about that, I believe he would have been less forthcoming on the other details. I guess people just have to choose to believe what they want.
Workhorse
06-10-06, 12:22 PM
Could be but if he were going to lie to the Grand Jury about that, I believe he would have been less forthcoming on the other details. I guess people just have to choose to believe what they want.
Not really. Which is more difficult to uncover for the sake of perjury: That Giambi never did steroids at all or his time line was wrong? Admitting that he did steroids prior to signing with the Yankees wouldn't have any effect on him at all. Frankly, with that admission, he had nothing to lose.
hunter05
06-10-06, 12:56 PM
Don't forget Ortiz's injuries while with the Twins and them have little confidence in him.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 01:57 PM
I peronsally think all these players are getting bigger because of HGH. It is true that we are getting bigger as a society, but that is over the course of hundreds of years. Not a ten year span.
But you hit on my point. All these guys are under suspicion.
And thanks to the Grimsleys and Sanchezes and Lawtons everyone from AAA to the HOF is under suspicion.
It's not just HGH, though. Look at pictures of college teams and high school teams, and not just major colleges. When I was in college (15-20 years ago.... yikes), we'd be amazd at how much smaller players were even as recently as the 70s. And while there may have been a few giuys doing steroids -- certainly no more -- almost everybody was clean. Just a matter, I guess, of how people worked out and trained, ate, etc. -- all of which has continued to develop since that time.
On the Damon/Giambi thing, I'm with you about the suspicion and with no asterisks, etc. I guess the one thing that has sort of bothered me at times are some Yankees and Giants fans who seem to excuse Bonds, Giambi, etc. by pointing to other players who might have used. I understand the reasoning -- I don't doubt that many other players have used, that's something obvious. But until we know who some of those players are, no offense, but Bonds and Giambi and everybody else who has gotten caught are on a different level than the rest. Maybe it's pretty close to the same level, but it's got to be a different one. Just my opinion.
ChewieTobbacca
06-10-06, 02:02 PM
Its true at times I'm confused why Giambi and Sheffield get let off so easily (and Bonds even by some of the media) when they were admitted users.
That said, just looking at size is hard to say when at the same time, we have been eating genetically engineered foods and so on over the last few decades and here's another thought: I was born in america but am of Asian decent and I can notice when I visit Asia that I am a lot larger than the majority of people there - my cousins who are born here also are all larger by far (in size and height) than our cousins born there at the same age. I think there is defenitely something to be put into the culture and food we eat here that changes our size.
NYDCYankee
06-10-06, 02:57 PM
It's not just HGH, though. Look at pictures of college teams and high school teams, and not just major colleges. When I was in college (15-20 years ago.... yikes), we'd be amazd at how much smaller players were even as recently as the 70s. And while there may have been a few giuys doing steroids -- certainly no more -- almost everybody was clean. Just a matter, I guess, of how people worked out and trained, ate, etc. -- all of which has continued to develop since that time.
On the Damon/Giambi thing, I'm with you about the suspicion and with no asterisks, etc. I guess the one thing that has sort of bothered me at times are some Yankees and Giants fans who seem to excuse Bonds, Giambi, etc. by pointing to other players who might have used. I understand the reasoning -- I don't doubt that many other players have used, that's something obvious. But until we know who some of those players are, no offense, but Bonds and Giambi and everybody else who has gotten caught are on a different level than the rest. Maybe it's pretty close to the same level, but it's got to be a different one. Just my opinion.
I agree that Giambi and Bonds and Sheffield are at this point more guilty than everyone else. Oh and Alex Sanchez.
I agree that Giambi and Bonds and Sheffield are at this point more guilty than everyone else. Oh and Alex Sanchez.
And a certain member of the 3,000 hit 500 HR club....
Panamaniac42
06-10-06, 04:04 PM
Were there Sox on that team that juiced? I don't know.
Gabe wants to know if Naive is your middle name...
http://www.jasonhoke.com/gabe7.JPG
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 04:11 PM
Without Giambi, the Sox win game seven, go to the World Series, and could be back to back champions. All speculation, but that was always the only thing that bugged me about Giambi. If it weren't for im the Sox would've been in the WS in 2003.
Firstly, Giambi stopped using steroids a few months before that postseason.
Secondly, if you don't think that you have guys juicing on your team, you're crazy. I wouldn't be shocked if the veteran Jason Grimsley taught Manny about HGH and steroids when they were both on Cleveland. And I wouldn't be shocked if Manny taught Oritz about HGH when he came to Boston which made him go from an .800 OPS type guy to a 1.000 OPS type guy. Anyone else realize the jump he had as soon as he got to Boston? And I would be shocked if Trot Nixon wasn't juicing. Just to name a few.
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 04:12 PM
Gabe wants to know if Naive is your middle name...
http://www.jasonhoke.com/gabe7.JPG
I'd bet the house it wasn't just Gabe...
ChewieTobbacca
06-10-06, 04:46 PM
Firstly, Giambi stopped using steroids a few months before that postseason.
I don't think steroids simply stop affecting you after you stop using them.
Honestly, right now people are putting steroids as though its a miracle drug to make people play better - it's not something you take and it immediately takes hold and then you get better - and once you get off it, it goes away. Mediocre players can take it and they'll still be mediocre. It requires a lot of body work along with it to make your body grow stronger.
hunter05
06-10-06, 05:03 PM
Firstly, Giambi stopped using steroids a few months before that postseason.
Secondly, if you don't think that you have guys juicing on your team, you're crazy. I wouldn't be shocked if the veteran Jason Grimsley taught Manny about HGH and steroids when they were both on Cleveland. And I wouldn't be shocked if Manny taught Oritz about HGH when he came to Boston which made him go from an .800 OPS type guy to a 1.000 OPS type guy. Anyone else realize the jump he had as soon as he got to Boston? And I would be shocked if Trot Nixon wasn't juicing. Just to name a few.
Basically you wouldn't be shocked about any Red Sox player.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 05:05 PM
Basically you wouldn't be shocked about any Red Sox player.
I wouldn't be shocked by any player. Period. Anything else is a fantasy.
hunter05
06-10-06, 05:07 PM
I wouldn't be shocked by any player. Period. Anything else is a fantasy.
So guys like Jeter and Mo wouldn't surprise you? Cause it sure would surprise the hell out of me.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 05:09 PM
So guys like Jeter and Mo wouldn't surprise you? Cause it sure would surprise the hell out of me.
Sad to say but no. I would be incredibly saddened and disappointed but not shocked.
hunter05
06-10-06, 05:11 PM
Sad to say but no. I would be incredibly saddened and disappointed but not shocked.
Interesting. If those two were to get named even though they're on a team that I despise (Not trying to start ANYTHING), it would be sort of crushing to me. I can't really explain why.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 05:15 PM
Interesting. If those two were to get named even though they're on a team that I despise (Not trying to start ANYTHING), it would be sort of crushing to me. I can't really explain why.
I would share the crushed feeling but we like to think that we really know our players. Especially the heroes. But we really don't know them at all. Only what they share with us. They say the right things and play the right way but they are human and there is so much pressure to excel. Do I think either of these two are juicers? No. And they certainly fit the "least likely" category. Maybe I am just pessimistic and preparing myself for a big blow but I just can't put anyone above suspicion at this point. Kind of depressing for me really.
I would share the crushed feeling but we like to think that we really know our players. Especially the heroes. But we really don't know them at all. Only what they share with us. They say the right things and play the right way but they are human and there is so much pressure to excel. Do I think either of these two are juicers? No. And they certainly fit the "least likely" category. Maybe I am just pessimistic and preparing myself for a big blow but I just can't put anyone above suspicion at this point. Kind of depressing for me really.
I know how you feel. I too definitely fall on the "anyone is possible" side of the fence. It definitely is depressing to spend too much time thinking about it.
JeterRodriguezSheff
06-10-06, 05:19 PM
Without Giambi, the Sox win game seven, go to the World Series, and could be back to back champions. All speculation, but that was always the only thing that bugged me about Giambi. If it weren't for im the Sox would've been in the WS in 2003.
If he doesnt take steroids, then he isnt good enough for the Yankees to sign him and they get somebody else. There might not have even been a game 7, hell maybe even one team doesnt make it. Who knows, maybe they get Ortiz instead and maybe Ortiz never becomes good on the Yankees, anything could have fricking happened, and there is no way to know.
nhyankeefan
06-10-06, 05:25 PM
Just for the sake of the arguement, I believe Giambi said in his Grand Jury testimony that he quit the roids in 2002. That means he was clean in 2003. I know he could have been lying but why lie about that detail and throw himself in front of the bus on everything else?
IIRC Giambi testified that he stopped using in July 2003 because he was having problems with his knees. I don't think he would lie about that while telling the truth about everything else, I'm sure he never thought his testimony would be leaked anyways.
yanksphan
06-10-06, 06:11 PM
This would work for MLB too! Make the players give blood tests now, every last player down to the 25th player on each roster. Store the blood. And do this every year from now on.
Lance Armstrong says hi.
Lance Armstrong says hi.
I really don't see the relevnce of you bringing up Lance. THe supposed positive blood tests reported in the French magazine, were discredited by an independent investigator for several reasons. Protocol wasn't followed and the "results" were meaningless
Taking blood and urine samples and stroing them for use in future testing would be an excellent deterrent
WADA has realiable testing for HGH, we could use their protocol and get an HGH test going right now.
Once the names come out, the public will be outraged, and COngress- for all thei media whoring grandstanding- will agin be the impetus for Bud Lite to actually do someting again
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 06:26 PM
Basically you wouldn't be shocked about any Red Sox player.
I wouldn't be shocked by any player. (Except Jeter, Mo, and Bernie). There are a few Sox players that I would be more surprised about than others.
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 06:27 PM
And the reason no Sox player wouldn't shock me is because I, personally, believe steroids and HGH were (and still are with HGH) incredibly prevalent in all of baseball. I think the vast majority of players at least tried the stuff.
yanksphan
06-10-06, 06:28 PM
I really don't see the relevnce of you bringing up Lance. THe supposed positive blood tests reported in the French magazine, were discredited by an independent investigator for several reasons. Protocol wasn't followed and the "results" were meaningless
Taking blood and urine samples and stroing them for use in future testing would be an excellent deterrent
WADA has realiable testing for HGH, we could use their protocol and get an HGH test going right now.
Once the names come out, the public will be outraged, and COngress- for all thei media whoring grandstanding- will agin be the impetus for Bud Lite to actually do someting again
Uh no, but close.
The UCI requires both an A and B sample from each rider (I currently hold an active UCI license). The B sample was used for testing THIS PAST YEAR. The reason it was discredited was there was a chance that the sample was not in fact Lance's at all. This is why the positive result was thrown out.
What makes you think this wouldn't happen in baseball? What if the test isn't actually done for 3 or 4 years? What if the samples being stored for such a long time effects the accuracy of the test? What if the same mis-handling of the samples occurs? You know damn well that if Barry gives a sample, then 3 years from now it comes up positive, his lawyers will do everything they can to discredit the process - EXACTLY like Lance's did, and succeeded at.
THAT's why I brought up Lance.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 06:32 PM
I wouldn't be shocked by any player. (Except Jeter, Mo, and Bernie). There are a few Sox players that I would be more surprised about than others.
Why would you be shocked by them but not others?
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 06:43 PM
Why would you be shocked by them but not others?
Jeter's body has never changed since being in MLB and even in the minors - nor has his numbers. Mo is a really religious guy that doesn't seem like the type to drink or do any drugs. Bernie is Bernie.
I think it is more because I would be devastated if any of those guys (Mo then Jeter then Bernie in that order) used. It would be like finding out there was no Santa Claus and then multiplying that feeling by 10.
buckyjacobson
06-10-06, 06:49 PM
Jeter's body has never changed since being in MLB and even in the minors - nor has his numbers. Mo is a really religious guy that doesn't seem like the type to drink or do any drugs. Bernie is Bernie.
I think it is more because I would be devastated if any of those guys (Mo then Jeter then Bernie in that order) used. It would be like finding out there was no Santa Claus and then multiplying that feeling by 10.
Fair enough on the latter. I think we all have our favorites, so subjextively speaking, certain players should surprise us more. I also think we all have our preconceived notions of what a steroid user looks or acts like or how it affects their results, so the more objective attempts to determine likelihood of usage are bound to fall short. (By the way, did you know Nixon's supposed to be a pretty religious guy, too?)
Workhorse
06-10-06, 06:59 PM
Fair enough on the latter. I think we all have our favorites, so subjextively speaking, certain players should surprise us more. I also think we all have our preconceived notions of what a steroid user looks or acts like or how it affects their results, so the more objective attempts to determine likelihood of usage are bound to fall short. (By the way, did you know Nixon's supposed to be a pretty religious guy, too?)
Not "supposed". He is.
He's also a terrific guy. A close family friend of mine who is a huge Sox fan has stage 4 brain cancer and Trot found out about it through a church friend. Trot has called to offer his support a number of times and continues to pray for his family.
JeffWeaverFan
06-10-06, 07:06 PM
Fair enough on the latter. I think we all have our favorites, so subjextively speaking, certain players should surprise us more. I also think we all have our preconceived notions of what a steroid user looks or acts like or how it affects their results, so the more objective attempts to determine likelihood of usage are bound to fall short. (By the way, did you know Nixon's supposed to be a pretty religious guy, too?)
Nope, I did not know that. Trot has definitely been a guy that I have suspected for a few years now though.
bobby jr
06-10-06, 08:13 PM
I'm not naming any names here, but Canseco said in his book that one mark of a steroid user was a pitcher who actually became more effective past the age when pitchers have historically been washed up.
And I don't mean a pitcher developing a knuckle ball, I mean a pitcher in his mid to late 30's or even older who actually increases his velocity and control, and pitches the same number or actually increases his IP. Without developing a new pitch.
When you look at the history of baseball, by their mid 30's most pitchers have been finished, with a few notable exceptions.
As for the potential problems if MLB takes blood samples now and stores them, surely the best medical and lab procedures could be followed, and there is simply no alternative.
If MLB just continues the urine test for steroids, they will catch virtually nobody, only a tiny percentage of the cheaters will be caught, eventually nobody will be caught, all the juicers will switch to HGH.
If MLB continues the urine test for steroids, players will just continue to take Human Growth Hormone and laugh at the testing procedure. This is not acceptable.
yankeebot
06-10-06, 08:28 PM
What we are learning as more and more information about users comes out is that there is not a prototypical PED user. Some use it to build muscle, some to recover faster from injury/wear and tear. Some to fight the aging process. That is making it harder and harder to rule anyone out. As for the religious players, history shows us that faith does not make you immune. Scandals involving religious leaders are common place.
ChewieTobbacca
06-10-06, 08:58 PM
What we are learning as more and more information about users comes out is that there is not a prototypical PED user. Some use it to build muscle, some to recover faster from injury/wear and tear. Some to fight the aging process. That is making it harder and harder to rule anyone out. As for the religious players, history shows us that faith does not make you immune. Scandals involving religious leaders are common place.
Yep, I don't think anybody is really immune to doing it.
BTW JWF - you name Pujols but he fits everything you described about Mo and Jeter. His body has never changed in the major leagues, he's always been good at an age he should be getting good at, and he's an extremely deeply religious guy (check http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org for some idea on him, including his letters to fans). I think you'll need a much better reasoning than those.
JeterRodriguezSheff
06-10-06, 09:10 PM
Yep, I don't think anybody is really immune to doing it.
BTW JWF - you name Pujols but he fits everything you described about Mo and Jeter. His body has never changed in the major leagues, he's always been good at an age he should be getting good at, and he's an extremely deeply religious guy (check http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org for some idea on him, including his letters to fans). I think you'll need a much better reasoning than those.
Actually Pujols has got a bit bigger since he got called, but that is normal for somebody his age. What concerns me is the fact he is balding and has acne while his personal trainer and personal friend MIGHT have been connected to a steroid distributor.
claremont
06-10-06, 11:20 PM
I would not be shocked by ANY mlb player testing positive. do you guys realize that steroids will not necessarily make you huge or give you massive forearms? its not something you can judge by just looking at a guy. in the case of someone like bonds it is a hint, but for the most part everyone is just guessing.
ChewieTobbacca
06-10-06, 11:57 PM
Actually Pujols has got a bit bigger since he got called, but that is normal for somebody his age. What concerns me is the fact he is balding and has acne while his personal trainer and personal friend MIGHT have been connected to a steroid distributor.
Balding I have heard of (though at the same time two of my very good friends had to shave their heads completely due to hair loss by the time they were 25 and a teacher I had in high school was barely 30 and was also bald as well) - acne I haven't heard of him with.
And yeah, as of now, it's a big might since only Deadspin has reported that, and they weren't even 90% sure.
donniesrecordholdsup
06-11-06, 12:07 AM
Fair enough on the latter. I think we all have our favorites, so subjextively speaking, certain players should surprise us more. I also think we all have our preconceived notions of what a steroid user looks or acts like or how it affects their results, so the more objective attempts to determine likelihood of usage are bound to fall short. (By the way, did you know Nixon's supposed to be a pretty religious guy, too?)
his postgame interview after the walk off in game 3 of the 03 alds gave me a clue
donniesrecordholdsup
06-11-06, 12:09 AM
bernie would shock me the most. never put up huge numbers and basically starting declining at the exact age you normally start to decline.
one thing on pujols always being the same. so was mark mcgwire. this guy came into the majors already juicing. 49 homers right away. not everybody is bonds or sosa that start juciing mid career and suddenly have a jump in numbers and appearence.
ChewieTobbacca
06-11-06, 01:11 AM
I doubt its Bernie - while numbers dont mean anything (see all the mediocre players in trouble), he has had a normal decline or at least sure as heck wasn't using it when everyone else was.
one thing on pujols always being the same. so was mark mcgwire. this guy came into the majors already juicing. 49 homers right away. not everybody is bonds or sosa that start juciing mid career and suddenly have a jump in numbers and appearence.
Of course anything is possible - McGwire came in hitting 49 but also dropped immediately to 30 ish a year for the next 4 years. He also came in at the age of 23 (2 years older than Pujols) and had Jose Canseco as a teammate (they were called up within a year of each other).
Now keep in mind Pujols came in at 21 - and Bill James did a study about this before. From the age of 20 to 21, a hitter will increase in performance greater than from the age of 21 to 22, and from 22 to 23, etc. until a performance peak at the age of 26-28. This isn't true for everyone, but for the history of baseball, it is indeed what the majority of people will go through (and this is true for just about every sport).
In his first season, Pujols hit only 37 HR's - nothing at all like the 49 McGwire put up. Pujols also hit 47 doubles though - McGwire had only 28. Now why is that important? Because when one keeps track of young players, such as minor league prospects, double power usually translates to home run power as one gets older. Power develops last among players - and hitting a good amount of doubles is a sign that they have great power potential.
Also, A-Rod was 20/21 when he broke out in 1996 with 54 doubles and 36 home runs. Since then, only his 1997 season has he never hit more doubles than home runs. Now, we consider A-Rod a "natural" player, and we see that it correlates - hitting doubles and translating it into home runs at an older age is common. And Pujols 37 HR's in a rookie season is hardly surprising given A-Rod had even more XBH's at the same age.
Pujols hitting a ton of home runs this year has come at a cost to his doubles (again, we might see the double->HR power transition), an increase in his plate patience and discipline, and an increased flyball number (at cost of batting average) - as well as a new home ball park he has hit very very well in. And let's not forget he's doing this at age 26, when it should be his peak year.
This is in complete contrast to McGwire who not only had an infamous juicing teammate but also came out of the box hitting 40+ jacks a year then later hits 60+ when he should be on the decline.
It just doesn't add up in the same way.
buckyjacobson
06-11-06, 01:26 AM
bernie would shock me the most. never put up huge numbers and basically starting declining at the exact age you normally start to decline.
one thing on pujols always being the same. so was mark mcgwire. this guy came into the majors already juicing. 49 homers right away. not everybody is bonds or sosa that start juciing mid career and suddenly have a jump in numbers and appearence.
McGwire got considerably larger during his career, like Clemens did, but not in any one noticeable leap.
HidekiIrabu
06-11-06, 01:58 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/06/09/grimsley.trainer/index.html
NYDCYankee
06-12-06, 06:52 PM
Grimsley suspended 50 games.
BroadwayBomber55
06-12-06, 08:28 PM
Grimsley suspended 50 games.
Article: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=ApNQYvXnewuS42V2FqpiXmYRvLYF?slug=ap-grimsleysuspended&prov=ap&type=lgns
Mattpat11
06-13-06, 12:59 PM
Grimsley suspended 50 games.
Baseball in the Selig Regime. A day late and a dollar short.
noneckwilliams
06-13-06, 01:13 PM
Grimsley suspended 50 games.
Oooh - that was bold.
Mattpat11
06-13-06, 01:18 PM
Oooh - that was bold. They showed him.
Kendrick- a man who doesn't hold a ton of respect in the game to begin with- put his foot into his mouth yesterday. It will absolutely come back to haunt him....
AnibalTheCannibal
06-13-06, 03:13 PM
Okay, I don't get this suspension at all. One, who care? He retired. Ban him for life. I don't he cares. But more importantly, Grimsley was suspended because of a federal investigation. Uhh, why aren't Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, and Jason Giambi suspended for fifty games then? I'm not advocating it, but it just goes to show, once again, that MLB couldn't care less about the steroids problem in baseball. Suspend the middle reliever, but please spare Barry. Afterall, if Barry wasn't playing, San Francisco's park would have about 30 people in the stadium, and half of them would be family of the other team's players.
I can't stand the approach they're taking to this issue. Have a hard line set of rules, or don't have any at all.
I like the quote from Todd Jones "It's like giving a guy a speeding ticket after he's been killed in a car accident." ;)
NYDCYankee
06-13-06, 03:20 PM
Did Grimsley actually even test positive for anything (I know he did a few year ago but that shouldn't count) or is this just based on everything swirling around him?
Mr. Mxylsplk
06-13-06, 04:38 PM
Did Grimsley actually even test positive for anything (I know he did a few year ago but that shouldn't count) or is this just based on everything swirling around him?
No, he didn't test positive now. Just the 03 test when there weren't punishments in place.
NYDCYankee
06-13-06, 10:48 PM
No, he didn't test positive now. Just the 03 test when there weren't punishments in place.
So that doesn't seem fair. Right?
LuckyLopez
06-14-06, 04:29 AM
The only possible arguement I could imagine is that Grimsley's exposure comes after the punishments are established. Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi's came before any punishments were established.
I think that's a completely flimsy stance and I agree with everyone who screams hypocrisy. Its ridiculous. Its just the explanation that I can understand.
The only legitimate arguement I can understand for Grimsley being punished is the federal charges he may be charged with. That I could see as legitimate reasons to suspend Grimsley when not doing the same with Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield. Players have been punished specifically for criminal charges in the past. The difference probably is that Grimsley seems to be charged with something while Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi were not.
NYDCYankee
06-14-06, 04:38 AM
The only possible arguement I could imagine is that Grimsley's exposure comes after the punishments are established. Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi's came before any punishments were established.
I think that's a completely flimsy stance and I agree with everyone who screams hypocrisy. Its ridiculous. Its just the explanation that I can understand.
The only legitimate arguement I can understand for Grimsley being punished is the federal charges he may be charged with. That I could see as legitimate reasons to suspend Grimsley when not doing the same with Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield. Players have been punished specifically for criminal charges in the past. The difference probably is that Grimsley seems to be charged with something while Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi were not.
They could suspend Sheff now that he is on the DL for 50 days. :P
yanksconstantino24
06-14-06, 07:33 AM
Okay, I don't get this suspension at all. One, who care? He retired. Ban him for life. I don't he cares. But more importantly, Grimsley was suspended because of a federal investigation. Uhh, why aren't Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, and Jason Giambi suspended for fifty games then? I'm not advocating it, but it just goes to show, once again, that MLB couldn't care less about the steroids problem in baseball. Suspend the middle reliever, but please spare Barry. Afterall, if Barry wasn't playing, San Francisco's park would have about 30 people in the stadium, and half of them would be family of the other team's players.
I can't stand the approach they're taking to this issue. Have a hard line set of rules, or don't have any at all.
Grimsley did not retire yet, he just isn't playing anywhere. Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield may have all used steroids, but nobody caught HGH being delivered to their houses. They did with Grimsley. I really wish their was something they could do about Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield, but they really can't. I think those three definately got lucky.
Mr. Mxylsplk
06-14-06, 09:57 AM
So that doesn't seem fair. Right?
Agreed.
ChewieTobbacca
06-14-06, 12:07 PM
It's a stupid and flimsy situation.
And the guy's retiring anyways - why suspend him now? It's pointless.
silverdsl
06-14-06, 01:02 PM
Grimsley did not retire yet, he just isn't playing anywhere. Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield may have all used steroids, but nobody caught HGH being delivered to their houses. They did with Grimsley. I really wish their was something they could do about Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield, but they really can't. I think those three definately got lucky.Yes, the key is that Grimsley was caught red-handed with the HGH in his house. Almost everything that we know about the misdeeds of Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield come from leaked grand jury testimony.
penfold
06-14-06, 01:11 PM
It's a stupid and flimsy situation.
And the guy's retiring anyways - why suspend him now? It's pointless.
Anybody know if the suspension would affect his retirement benefits from the union? (Doubt it but THAT would put some teeth into the punishment. Make ME commissioner! Make ME commissioner!)
Why Not?
06-18-06, 08:34 AM
David Segui says he's one of the redacted names, but his use of HGH was legal.
Segui was muscular and constantly hurt, which always made him a steroid suspect.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2489724
jonnyc39
06-18-06, 05:17 PM
David Segui says he's one of the redacted names, but his use of HGH was legal.
Segui was muscular and constantly hurt, which always made him a steroid suspect.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2489724It was legal in that he received it through a perscription through his doctor. However it was still illegal in MLB when he used it as late as 2004, and he did not have permission from MLB to use.
NYDCYankee
06-18-06, 05:28 PM
It was legal in that he received it through a perscription through his doctor. However it was still illegal in MLB when he used it as late as 2004, and he did not have permission from MLB to use.
He was probably using it on the DL at that point. So I am not sure if it matters. :P
So I guess this revelation might mean that the players who are name in the document know that they were named.
Why Not?
06-18-06, 06:04 PM
I think Segui knew his name was in the report because he recognized the details of the conversation with Grimsley. He has since spoken to Grimsley, so I'm assuming Segui's notion was confirmed.
Why Not?
06-18-06, 06:12 PM
It was legal in that he received it through a perscription through his doctor. However it was still illegal in MLB when he used it as late as 2004, and he did not have permission from MLB to use.
Segui got hurt pretty early in the 2004 season and didn't return, if I remember correctly. I also remember Segui "announcing" that 2004 was going to be his final season. If they weren't going to test for it and his career was essentially over, it probably wasn't going to be worth the effort to file the paperwork.
Honestly, I think Segui was probably using other substances than HGH. And I question whether he really had a condition that required use of something that just happens to help you build muscles and be a better baseball player.
bobby jr
06-19-06, 08:30 AM
Let's not jump to conclusions about Segui. He claims the HGH was legally prescribed. He said he still takes it because he has a natural deficiency of the hormone.
Besides he has been retired for a couple of seasons. What I care about now is the current MLB players who are juicing on HGH which is not tested for by MLB. This is the key, MLB MUST start testing for HGH immediately. Selig should declare an emergency and impose the HGH blood tests in the best interests of baseball.
Let's not jump to conclusions about Segui. He claims the HGH was legally prescribed. He said he still takes it because he has a natural deficiency of the hormone.
Besides he has been retired for a couple of seasons. What I care about now is the current MLB players who are juicing on HGH which is not tested for by MLB. This is the key, MLB MUST start testing for HGH immediately. Selig should declare an emergency and impose the HGH blood tests in the best interests of baseball.
Wait a minute, was Segui on the Orioles? Yeah, your double standards are blatant
Honestly, I think Segui was probably using other substances than HGH. And I question whether he really had a condition that required use of something that just happens to help you build muscles and be a better baseball player.
Could be. If he did have the prescription, he probably figured he would cover his ass by coming out and saying it before his name gets leaked. A smart move on his part, in terms of salvaging his reputation.
Panamaniac42
06-20-06, 12:14 AM
Wait a minute, was Segui on the Orioles? Yeah, your double standards are blatant
:lol:
Yes he and Marty Cordova, who became so muscle-bound he admittedly "lost the flexibility to swing the bat" as he once did.
TinoFan84
06-20-06, 09:13 AM
It was legal in that he received it through a perscription through his doctor. However it was still illegal in MLB when he used it as late as 2004, and he did not have permission from MLB to use.
Nicely put!
bobby jr
06-20-06, 01:16 PM
The word I am hearing on local Baltimore stations etc is that Segui is insisting he took the HGH for medical reasons, that he was in so much pain from his knee injuries etc. The HGH helped with his healing, his ability to move, and the pain. Remember, this guy had a long history of being on the DL. Here is what the local announcers have said that he said, to paraphrase what I've heard that Segui said.
Segui says he has completely documented proofs, prescriptions, showing exactly why he took the HGH. That is why he came public about this matter now. He wants to be open and honest about this.
Segui said without the HGH his knees made him feel like he was 80 years old.
Segui also said that he is still taking the HGH two years after he retired and has continuously taken it, which is another proof that he needs the stuff, that he wasn't taking it to juice up and hit HR's, but for legitimate medical reasons.
Now to me this is a key point. One of the damning pictures of McGwire was that he apparently shrunk during the years since he retired and before he appeared before the congressional committee. Now if Segui was taking HGH to improve his performance, he would have stopped taking the stuff when he retired, certainly within two years.
Sounds like some apologies may be in order from those who prejudged the man as being guilty without all the evidence being in.
yankeebot
06-20-06, 01:19 PM
Bobby - did you read this?
Originally Posted by jonnyc39
It was legal in that he received it through a perscription through his doctor. However it was still illegal in MLB when he used it as late as 2004, and he did not have permission from MLB to use.
Mr. Mxylsplk
06-20-06, 01:58 PM
Sounds like some apologies may be in order from those who prejudged the man as being guilty without all the evidence being in.
But he is guilty. He's guilty of using a banned substance. Period. What he needed medically is irrelevant, at least in terms of baseball. People can get medical prescriptions for steroids too, and that would be illegal in mlb (or any other sport) too. While I disagree with the earlier suggestion that he may not have had a condition truly requiring the use of HGH, any other comments about Segui's "guilt" in this thread are spot on. He broke mlb's rules, plain and simple.
bobby jr
06-20-06, 03:09 PM
I did a search to find when HGH was banned and I found the following article dated 12/02/04:
http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2004/m12/d02/c917955.jsp
...."Human growth hormone is not specifically banned by Major League Baseball. "
So the banning of HGH took place AFTER Segui retired in 2004.
He had a prescription for HGH and he still does. Now I am not a doctor, but apparently there are legitimate medical reasons for taking HGH, and Segui has medical reasons to take it. Or else why would his doctor continue to prescribe it and why would he take it well over two years after he retired? Certainly not to improve his performance.
Why Not?
06-20-06, 09:59 PM
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-segui0620,0,2744438.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines
Baltimore Sun story gives some details about Segui's prescription. Sorta makes him sound legit.
Segui, who was 37 when given the results, faxed copies of the test results and his prescription to The Sun.
"The doctor told me that someone who works out as much as I do shouldn't have this problem. But my level was so low, it was almost off the chart. I wasn't even close."
Dr. E.K. Schandl, the clinical laboratory director at American Metabolic Laboratories in Hollywood, Fla., said it's common to prescribe hGH under these circumstances. Somatropin is a medication used to treat, among other things, growth failure and growth hormone deficiency.
"On our scale, for a 40-year-old person, the optimum level is almost 500," said Dr. Schandl, an oncobiologist and clinical and nutritional biochemist. "A reading of 114 is abnormal for his age. That would be a 120-year-old male on an average scale. That really cries for help.
"I definitely would want an individual like that to be helped by some growth hormone."
savafan
06-22-06, 10:49 AM
But he is guilty. He's guilty of using a banned substance. Period. What he needed medically is irrelevant, at least in terms of baseball. People can get medical prescriptions for steroids too, and that would be illegal in mlb (or any other sport) too. While I disagree with the earlier suggestion that he may not have had a condition truly requiring the use of HGH, any other comments about Segui's "guilt" in this thread are spot on. He broke mlb's rules, plain and simple.
But MLB allows for steroid use to those who have them prescribed by a physician for medical purposes.
I did a search to find when HGH was banned and I found the following article dated 12/02/04:
http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/content/printer_friendly/mlb/y2004/m12/d02/c917955.jsp
...."Human growth hormone is not specifically banned by Major League Baseball. "
So the banning of HGH took place AFTER Segui retired in 2004.
He had a prescription for HGH and he still does. Now I am not a doctor, but apparently there are legitimate medical reasons for taking HGH, and Segui has medical reasons to take it. Or else why would his doctor continue to prescribe it and why would he take it well over two years after he retired? Certainly not to improve his performance.
Obviously he's still hoping for one more go with the O's! :D (and given their track record....)
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0