Bonds, Steroids, Game of Shadows, and can a 37+ yo bat better than before?
raylopez99
Going through the excellent book "Game of Shadows" by Fainaru-Wada and
Williams.
The numbers for Bonds shows he batted "better than ever" at age 37+
(2001), at 0.328 AVG. Interestingly, he did not bat that well after he
started to take steroids in 1999 (age 35). It took about two years for
the right "mix" to be found (formula was changing say the authors, and
the tendon injury in 1999 delayed things).
I am leaning towards saying Bond took steroids, but what is interesting
is that all of MLB seems to take 'roids. Consider the curious career
of Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, who had his second best year (out of 19
seasons) at age 39! 0.323. Go here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/murraed02.shtml
Murray's best year was at age 34 (0.330)
So the whole league is juiced, not just Bonds.
Which actually, in my book, makes Bonds legitimate.
Like GOS says, the rules in MLB, Bud Selig style, which did not have a
drug policy until 2000, was "cheat or lose".
BTW GOS is a great book even and especially if you are a Bay area
sports fan. Lots of people in BALCO are from the SF region.
Any thoughts not already said?
RL
Tim M
> The numbers for Bonds shows he batted "better than ever" at age 37+
> (2001), at 0.328 AVG. Interestingly, he did not bat that well after he
> started to take steroids in 1999 (age 35). It took about two years for
> the right "mix" to be found (formula was changing say the authors, and
> the tendon injury in 1999 delayed things).
Your point here is good, but it's odd that you'd focus on batting
average, when its his power and on-base numbers that rewrote the record
book in his age 36-39 spike. 73 HRs, an .863 SLG, a .609 OBP, those
are "Nintendo numbers".
> I am leaning towards saying Bond took steroids, but what is interesting
> is that all of MLB seems to take 'roids. Consider the curious career
> of Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, who had his second best year (out of 19
> seasons) at age 39! 0.323. Go here:
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/murraed02.shtml
> Murray's best year was at age 34 (0.330)
>
> So the whole league is juiced, not just Bonds.
I don't get what you're saying here. The whole league? Look at Ted
Williams 1957 (age 38) season, was he juicing that year? Strange
things often happen in a single year. Bonds 4-year stretch was so
otherworldly that it raises more eyebrows than a single blip by Murray.
Raymond DiPerna
raylopez99 wrote:
> I'm new to baseball so don't go ballistic.
>
> Going through the excellent book "Game of Shadows" by Fainaru-Wada and
> Williams.
>
> The numbers for Bonds shows he batted "better than ever" at age 37+
> (2001), at 0.328 AVG. Interestingly, he did not bat that well after he
> started to take steroids in 1999 (age 35). It took about two years for
> the right "mix" to be found (formula was changing say the authors, and
> the tendon injury in 1999 delayed things).
>
> I am leaning towards saying Bond took steroids, but what is interesting
> is that all of MLB seems to take 'roids. Consider the curious career
> of Hall of Famer Eddie Murray, who had his second best year (out of 19
> seasons) at age 39! 0.323. Go here:
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/murraed02.shtml
> Murray's best year was at age 34 (0.330)
It's a little odd that the focus is on batting average here, when most
people associate steroids first and foremost with power. (Second would
probably be endurance.)
Murray's second best year as a _hitter_ was not at age 39.
In any case, while Bonds's post-35 performance is off the charts, it's
certainly not unheard of for players to have some of their best years
after age 35. Dwight Evans, for example, had some of his best from
ages 34-37. Moises Alou has put up some pretty good numbers from ages
37-39. Andres Galarraga may have had his best year at age 37.
I'm not suggesting Bonds didn't use steroids -- he probably did -- but
if steroids cause that kind of a late-career jump we'd expect to see
more examples of it. Palmeiro didn't display that kind of a
late-career performance leap; neither did Canseco (or anyone else).
And these were two guys with HOF level hitting ability as a base.
Brent Peterson
> I'm not suggesting Bonds didn't use steroids -- he probably did -- but
> if steroids cause that kind of a late-career jump we'd expect to see
> more examples of it. Palmeiro didn't display that kind of a
> late-career performance leap; neither did Canseco (or anyone else).
> And these were two guys with HOF level hitting ability as a base.
One difference between Bonds and some others is that the likes of
Canseco and Palmeiro allegedly took steroids throughout their 20s and
early 30s, whereas Bonds, according to the Game of Shadows, did not
start taking steroids until he was 35.
If this is true, then Canseco and Palmeiro did not have a "HOF level" as
a base; instead, their HOF-level numbers were (at least in part) the
*result* of the steroids they took. In the case of Bonds, he had
HOF-level numbers (already better than the allegedly steroid-inflated
numbers of Canseco and Palmeiro) before he started taking PEDs in 1998.
When looking at Bonds's offensive production, it's difficult to draw
conclusions by comparing him to other players. How many HOF-level
players are there in a given generation? Pretty much by definition,
only a few. How many players started using PEDs in their mid to
late-30s? It's hard to say, but probably not a lot, especially since
most players aren't even still around by their mid-to-late 30s. The
case of Bonds is so unusual--the combination of so many unique
factors--that comparisons are often close to meaningless.
-Brent
raylopez99
wish I could extend it more. My thoughts:
-- Somebody who has a Sabremetrics/Baseball statistics dB (do such
things exist outside the professinal sports level?) should run a query
and see how many "top 1%" players, even HOF players, post age 35 y.o.,
had significant numbers above (1) the average for post-35 yo players,
and, (2) their own pre-35 yo numbers (or with no significant decline).
You could probably, if you have the numbers, use Excel to do a
least-squares-statistical fit and figure out which players had a
"blip". Then compare pre-70s to post 1970s players, to see who the
probable dopers are (I figure doping is a 70s phenom, since the East
Germans did it, but perhaps, according to some rumors, it started '50
years ago'--Ted Williams on steroids?) * Of course this query will not
catch "lifelong juicers" since all their performances are biased by
drugs.
-- I've ordered this book: Dunks, Doubles, Doping: How Steroids are
Killing American Athletics (Hardcover) by Nathan Jendrick (Author).
Despite the title, designed to attract attention, apparently the book
is neutral on 'roids (i.e. steroids properly administered have no
noticeable really bad side effects--at least ones that will kill you or
maim you right now--and they do have obvious beneficial effects, so
they should be allowed at some levels/ages and for certain drugs)
--the points made by all here are good: 'power' is not shown by
batting average (though I would argue there's a correlation of course);
some players are late bloomers; one year is not exceptional (pace a
certain player called Ken Caminiti); Bonds is exceptional since his
experience is like a 'perfect storm' of factors that most players never
achieve; you cannot compare lifelong juicers to a Johnny-come-lately
like Bonds, since there's no 'clean baseline' to compare the lifelong
juicers against.
*BTW if anybody has the raw data for the above database query, send it
to me with an explanation of the data (use
http://www.sendthisfile.com/?rc=largefile ) my email: raylopez99
_at-symbol-here_ yahoo.com. I'll do a Excel database analysis of it.
RL
Dobbs Redemption
Saw on ESPN that Grimsley outed Clemens (among others) in his FBI
affadvit. If Clemens used, it was presumably starting in his mid to
late 30s. And he's had remarkable success as he'd moved into his 40s.
Of course, since this was about Clemens, ESPN reported the news as a
footnote on Baseball Tonight rather than the lead, second, and third
stories like with the BALCO bust.
Barry Bonds
You are an idiot-new comer. We have had this discussion 1000 times
before. Making up this bullshit, 'I am new here' lie is just trolling.
Is this Dave, or Tonowanda (Rick) just using a new newsgroup ID? Sure
sounds like it.
Let me spell this out to you dick weed:
*Even* if Bonds used, there is NO FUCKING WAY ON GOD'D GREEN FUCKING
EARTH, that you, Jeff Novinsky, or MLB will EVER be able to prove it.
One of two things has to happen, ok think really hard as you read the
following words so that you and other lemmings will be able to
compre... or sorry you are a dickweek, U N D E R S T A N D the big
words:
1)A sample (blood/urine) has to be tested and found to contain
chemicals or markers of illegal substances
2)Barry Bonds publically admits to using.
Now short of those two things, Barry Bonds will still play major league
baseball, and his records will still stand until someone else passes
them.
So all the, 'I hate bighead' isn't going to remove or '*' 73 single
season HR. All the . 'He must have cheated, no one (white) is that
good!', isn't going to remove or alter 734 life time HR or 7 MVPs. Its
not going to chage a FUCKING THING, so stop making me mad, an cease
posting this WASTE of internet and hard drive space 'He is a cheater'
postings.
Either put up or shut the fuck up. I hate taxes, so is the gov going
to stop taxation? I hate the cost of gas, so will the oil companies
lowere the price for me? Same with Barry and his records... nothing is
going to change.
Barry
raylopez99
Barry Bonds wrote:
> Since you are new here, let me spell this out too you:
>
> You are an idiot-new comer. We have had this discussion 1000 times
> before. Making up this bullshit, 'I am new here' lie is just trolling.
> Is this Dave, or Tonowanda (Rick) just using a new newsgroup ID? Sure
> sounds like it.
Dude you're paranoid. Look at my other posts on Usenet; do I sound
like "Dave" or "Rick"?
>
> Let me spell this out to you dick weed:
>
> *Even* if Bonds used, there is NO FUCKING WAY ON GOD'D GREEN FUCKING
> EARTH, that you, Jeff Novinsky, or MLB will EVER be able to prove it.
Not true. You are a fool. Read on, fool.
> One of two things has to happen, ok think really hard as you read the
> following words so that you and other lemmings will be able to
> compre... or sorry you are a dickweek, U N D E R S T A N D the big
> words:
>
> 1)A sample (blood/urine) has to be tested and found to contain
> chemicals or markers of illegal substances
>
> 2)Barry Bonds publically admits to using.
There are a few other ways too that I can think of, including a trial
where all of his people testify that Bonds knew.
>
> Now short of those two things, Barry Bonds will still play major league
> baseball, and his records will still stand until someone else passes
> them.
Yes. And Bud Selig wants it that way. In fact, many people have
pointed out that there's an incentive not to rock the boat. As a very
astute track star once said, without steroids, who wants to see the
men's 100 meters being run at 11 seconds flat? Boring.
Ray
raylopez99
busted Conte. He must be on a roll.
Also of interest is that Palmeiro is the only person so far to be
busted on steroids, when in fact probably half the league (and the
superstars for sure) are juiced. Amazing.
Of course the league wants to sweep this problem under the rug, as they
do in track & field (as pointed out in the GOS book). Who wants to see
the men's 100 run in 11 seconds (without steroids) like they used to
run it in the 40s and 50s? Who wants to see a 1-0 pitchers duel in
baseball? You need 'roids to attract the crowds. So you might as well
legalize certain steroids that don't do harm IMO.
RL
Jeanne Douglas
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, how interesting that the IRS agent Noviksy? is also the one that
> busted Conte. He must be on a roll.
>
> Also of interest is that Palmeiro is the only person so far to be
> busted on steroids, when in fact probably half the league (and the
> superstars for sure) are juiced. Amazing.
>
> Of course the league wants to sweep this problem under the rug, as they
> do in track & field (as pointed out in the GOS book). Who wants to see
> the men's 100 run in 11 seconds (without steroids) like they used to
> run it in the 40s and 50s? Who wants to see a 1-0 pitchers duel in
> baseball?
Me. Me! Me!!!!
--
JD
"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
Raymond DiPerna
Dobbs Redemption wrote:
>
> Saw on ESPN that Grimsley outed Clemens (among others) in his FBI
> affadvit.
For what it's worth, Grimsley may have since denied making these
statements.
> If Clemens used, it was presumably starting in his mid to
> late 30s.
Why?
> And he's had remarkable success as he'd moved into his 40s.
But not due to more speed on his fastball. Mike Lupica said on ESPN
this morning that "the fastballs aren't supposed to get faster when you
get into your 40s." But Clemens is not throwing any faster -- indeed
he's throwing slower. Anyone who's watched him pitch this year knows
that he's typically coming in at around 91, 92. Sometimes 93. In any
case his fastball is generally slower than earlier in his career.
His 40s success is probably more linked to an increase in the number of
splitters he's throwing than anything else (as Rob Neyer has
suggested). His strikeout rate is _down_ from where it was in his 30s.
His walks and HRs are also down, and he's probably been a little lucky
on BABIP.
Assuming for the sake of argument that he's using PEDs despite not
failing a drug test, if his fastball isn't any faster, could such PEDs
be helping his endurance and recovery after starts? I suppose so, but
then you're just assuming the conclusion.
It would be hard to say they're helping to reduce his injuries, since
he's never been injury prone and he's indeed suffered injuries to his
lower body recently. Might he have suffered more injuries recently,
given his age, without these hypothetical PEDs? Possibly. But again,
I don't see how this line of discussion is helpful, since it's far out
in front of any evidence.
> Of course, since this was about Clemens, ESPN reported the news as a
> footnote on Baseball Tonight rather than the lead, second, and third
> stories like with the BALCO bust.
They led with the story in the 1am edition of SportsCenter I saw last
night. And the mediots led with it on ESPN's The Sports Reporters this
morning.
We're just missing so much of the context at this point. What,
exactly, were Grimsley's alleged statements? Which PEDs (anabolic
steroids? HGH? amphetamines?) did he say these players were using?
How did he say he knew this? Was he just speculating or did he have
firsthand knowledge of this use? To my knowledge we don't have any of
this information.
It's easy to display knee-jerk outrage over the headlines to this
latest twist. It's harder to bother actually examining what we've
learned here.
And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
place.
--Ray
Raymond DiPerna
raylopez99 wrote:
> Yes, how interesting that the IRS agent Noviksy? is also the one that
> busted Conte. He must be on a roll.
It's spelled "Novitzky."
> Also of interest is that Palmeiro is the only person so far to be
> busted on steroids, when in fact probably half the league (and the
> superstars for sure) are juiced. Amazing.
And your evidence for this claim? They're testing. They're not
finding anything close to 50%. And they've found only one "superstar."
Roger Moore
>And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
>of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
>ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
>results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
>place.
There are two reasons:
1) It does occasionally catch somebody who doesn't know how to beat
the tests or foolishly believes he won't be caught.
2) It gives the league the appearance of doing something about
performance enhancing drugs. When they do catch some of the people in
category 1, it helps to get the suspected cheats off the hook. After
all, if Rafael Palmeiro got caught and Barry Bonds didn't, that must
mean that Bonds is clean, right?
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, though. I think that it's
unreasonable to demand testing and then selectively dismiss negative
results.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
sfb
sworn statement subject by a Federal enforcement officer and is subject to
Federal perjury charges. Let us know when Grimsley shows up at the US
Attorney's office demanding the agent be indicted for perjury.
Whether Grimsley named the players and whether they actually used
performance enhancing drugs are two separate and distinct questions. That
Grimsley named them to the feds is fairly certain.
"Raymond DiPerna" <rdip...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1159740256.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale Hicks
rdip...@nyc.rr.com says...
>
> And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
> of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
> ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
> results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
> place.
Has Bonds ever failed a drug test?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
David M. Nieporent
"sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>For what it's worth, unlike Grimsley's press releases, the affidavit is a
>sworn statement subject by a Federal enforcement officer and is subject to
>Federal perjury charges. Let us know when Grimsley shows up at the US
>Attorney's office demanding the agent be indicted for perjury.
Big deal. LEOs committing perjury is hardly shocking. (Google
"testilying" if you want to learn about it.) There is zero chance of him
being indicted for perjury. For one thing, LEOs don't get prosecuted for
that under any circumstances. (In fact, almost nobody ever does.) For
another, it cannot possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this
situation, because it would be a swearing contest.
>Whether Grimsley named the players and whether they actually used
>performance enhancing drugs are two separate and distinct questions. That
>Grimsley named them to the feds is fairly certain.
Not in the least. Novitzky has no credibility at all. I might even
believe Bud Selig before I believed Novitzky.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>In article <1159740256.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>rdip...@nyc.rr.com says...
>>
>> And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
>> of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
>> ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
>> results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
>> place.
>
>Has Bonds ever failed a drug test?
This is disingenuous. If you take something for which there is no
test, how exactly are you going to fail a drug test? And THAT is a
very large part of the overall problem - denials and negative tests
mean little with today's testing regimens.
--
"Well, morning comes and you're still with her
And the bus and the tourists are gone
And you've thrown away the choice and lost your ticket
So you have to stay on."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
Ron Johnson
David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:07:24 -0500, Dale Hicks <dgh...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1159740256.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >rdip...@nyc.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
> >> of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
> >> ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
> >> results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
> >> place.
> >
> >Has Bonds ever failed a drug test?
>
> This is disingenuous. If you take something for which there is no
> test, how exactly are you going to fail a drug test? And THAT is a
> very large part of the overall problem - denials and negative tests
> mean little with today's testing regimens.
A very good way to look at this is the Tour de France.
David Millar for instance never failed a drug test. He did however
eventually plead guilty in open court. A raid on his house turned
up vials of epo.
Pretty much the same thing happened with Richard Virenque
(though it was his team's manager who was busted. After
years of denial, Virenque was forced to admit to doping
in open court)
This year's Tour *60%* of the field had doctors certificates
allowing the use of banned substances. Landis was only
one of thirteen positive tests (an interesting commentary on
the effectiveness of the tests IMO). The others all had
medical exemptions.
Dan Szymborski
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, raylo...@yahoo.com says...
> Yes, how interesting that the IRS agent Noviksy? is also the one that
> busted Conte. He must be on a roll.
>
> Also of interest is that Palmeiro is the only person so far to be
> busted on steroids, when in fact probably half the league (and the
> superstars for sure) are juiced. Amazing.
I'm a little confused - 13 or 14 players in the majors and
dozens of minor leaguers have been suspended for failed drug
tests recently.
[...]
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimerREMOVE.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
raylopez99
the master chemist behind Conte was a Mr. Arnold (who still advertises
on the web), the father of "precursor" steroids (which stimulate the
body to produce more testosterone, and which are semi legal), who also
formulated "Andro" for McGuire, and who formulated "The Clear" for
Conte and others (including an outfit in the SE that still is prominant
in track and field). They call it "The Clear" for a good reason--it's
impossible to detect. And the one drug that UCLA-based anti-doping
USADA chief scientist Catlin did reverse engineer was almost a stroke
of luck (and it brought down a bunch of pre-2004 Olympic
hopefuls--around 5, all but Marion Jones). Arnold and others have
since (I am sure) come up with other "designer steroids" that are
equally as hard to detect as "The Clear".
What's equally interesting is how these "designer steroids" are
semi-legal--because Congress has specifically forbade certain "old
fashioned" steroids, but by definition they have not and cannot make
illegal stuff that has not been designed yet (without disrupting all of
the legitimate pharma industry). Thus Arnold is able to advertise
today with impunity (let me see if I find his website: ah yes, Patrick
Arnold, here he is: quite a brilliant dude I may say, he used to post
a lot, along with Victor Conte, both using their real names(!), on
misc.fitness: http://www.ergopharm.net/)
In fact, if you see who got busted with baseball's lame (two times a
year, announced) drug policy, it's people foolish enough to be using
"old fashioned" detectable steroids that are specifically banned (like
Ben Johnson's steroid that I think Palmeiro was caught using).
RL
Ron Johnson wrote:
raylopez99
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > Who wants to see
> > the men's 100 run in 11 seconds (without steroids) like they used to
> > run it in the 40s and 50s? Who wants to see a 1-0 pitchers duel in
> > baseball?
>
> Me. Me! Me!!!!
>
You and me both Jeanne Douglas. But we are in the minority. I like to
watch spectator chess for fun. Try that on for size. Remember the
average IQ is but 100, which means 50% of the population is below this
number.
RL
raylopez99
Raymond DiPerna wrote:
[speculation on Clement's pitches deleted]
>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that he's using PEDs despite not
> failing a drug test, if his fastball isn't any faster, could such PEDs
> be helping his endurance and recovery after starts? I suppose so, but
> then you're just assuming the conclusion.
That is the entire debate Raymond.
>
> We're just missing so much of the context at this point. What,
> exactly, were Grimsley's alleged statements? Which PEDs (anabolic
> steroids? HGH? amphetamines?) did he say these players were using?
> How did he say he knew this? Was he just speculating or did he have
> firsthand knowledge of this use? To my knowledge we don't have any of
> this information.
>
> It's easy to display knee-jerk outrage over the headlines to this
> latest twist. It's harder to bother actually examining what we've
> learned here.
True, true.
>
> And it's hard for me to get worked up about all of this stuff when none
> of these guys have failed a drug test. True it's possible they're
> ahead of the testing, but if we're not going to believe the test
> results I haven't the foggiest clue why we're testing in the first
> place.
Read GOS. And the below, a ringing endorsement of Clements from
Palmeiro. And PEDs make you able to train harder (as in the book GOS
it is pointed out they allow you to train literally twice as long--some
athletes would go back for 'seconds' on the same day, when pre-steroids
they couldn't do that).
RL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clemens
An "Animal," When It Comes To Conditioning
A larger-than-life figure throughout his career, Clemens has spent the
past 20 seasons (at Boston, Toronto, and New York) watching thousands
of frustrated hitters walk from the plate back to the dugout. One
statistic says it all: Only two other pitchers in the entire history of
the sport have fanned more batters: Nolan Ryan (5,714) and Steve
Carlton (4,136).
Armed with a 95-mile-an-hour "riding" fastball and a diving "splitter"
that some analysts describe as the most devastating in baseball, the
burly Clemens has built his career around his ability to overpower
hitters. In the process, he's also made himself, his wife Debbie, and
his four sons rich. Clemens currently earns $10.1 million per year.
(Translation: If he posts 20 wins again this year, he'll receive
slightly more than $500,000 for each victory.)
But Clemens will tell you that he's earned every dollar -by lifting
heavy weights, exercising furiously, and running endless miles over the
years in order to develop his remarkable endurance. Glowering and
usually unshaven, the 6-4, 237-pound strikeout artist long ago taught
himself how to use his intense leg-strength to power the ball toward
the plate.
Former Texas Rangers star Rafael Palmeiro, one of the great American
League sluggers of recent years, described the Clemens heater quite
succinctly a few years back. "When he was on," said Palmeiro, "you
didn't look to be successful against him - you just wanted to
survive."
Dan Szymborski
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, raylo...@yahoo.com says...
[...]
> In fact, if you see who got busted with baseball's lame (two times a
> year, announced) drug policy, it's people foolish enough to be using
> "old fashioned" detectable steroids that are specifically banned (like
> Ben Johnson's steroid that I think Palmeiro was caught using).
This isn't true - drug testing is not announced. From spring
training until the end of the season (before the playoffs), each
player is randomly tested at least once at unannounced times.
MLB's Health Policy Advisory Committee decides on additional
unannounced random tests.
Roger Moore
>They call it "The Clear" for a good reason--it's impossible to
>detect. And the one drug that UCLA-based anti-doping USADA chief
>scientist Catlin did reverse engineer was almost a stroke of luck
>(and it brought down a bunch of pre-2004 Olympic hopefuls--around 5,
>all but Marion Jones).
It's not impossible to detect, and it's not luck. The problem is that
the current steroid testing system looks only for a known set of
drugs. Once a drug is known, it's straightforward to develop a test
for it. That's what happened with THG (The Clear); the testers missed
it because it wasn't on their list, but once they were given a sample
they were able to develop a test for it quite easily.
There are two ways of attacking this problem. One is simply to
archive players urine or blood samples so that testers can look at
them after new tests are developed. That puts players in a position
of knowing that they'll be caught after the fact even if they get away
with doping in the short run. The other (which happens to be under
development by some scientists where I work) is to develop a
biological test instead of a chemical one. The idea is that
biologists can develop a version of the body's own way of detecting
steroids, which will then give a positive result for anything that
functions as a steroid even if the testers don't know exactly what it
is.
>What's equally interesting is how these "designer steroids" are
>semi-legal--because Congress has specifically forbade certain "old
>fashioned" steroids, but by definition they have not and cannot make
>illegal stuff that has not been designed yet (without disrupting all of
>the legitimate pharma industry).
That's not actually true, though. The normal practice is that any
potential drug is illegal until it goes through a testing process to
ensure that it's safe and effective. And the government can (and
does) classify broad categories of chemical compounds as illegal (or
illegal without a prescription) rather than enumerating every possible
drug.
>Thus Arnold is able to advertise today with impunity (let me see if I
>find his website: ah yes, Patrick Arnold, here he is: quite a
>brilliant dude I may say, he used to post a lot, along with Victor
>Conte, both using their real names(!), on misc.fitness:
>http://www.ergopharm.net/)
The real problem is the idiotic "dietary supplements" law, which
leaves an enormous gaping loophole in the FDA drug approval process.
Drug peddlers are allowed to sell their wares as long as they claim
that their naturally occuring substances that might exist in our diets
and they avoid making specific claims about their effects. It
effectively eviscerates the FDA, and is one of the most ridiculous
things that Congress did in a long time.
raylopez99
Roger Moore wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >They call it "The Clear" for a good reason--it's impossible to
> >detect. And the one drug that UCLA-based anti-doping USADA chief
> >scientist Catlin did reverse engineer was almost a stroke of luck
> >(and it brought down a bunch of pre-2004 Olympic hopefuls--around 5,
> >all but Marion Jones).
>
> It's not impossible to detect, and it's not luck. The problem is that
> the current steroid testing system looks only for a known set of
> drugs. Once a drug is known, it's straightforward to develop a test
> for it. That's what happened with THG (The Clear); the testers missed
> it because it wasn't on their list, but once they were given a sample
> they were able to develop a test for it quite easily.
Yes, you are correct, though we can argue over "quite easily", since
the book GOS implies it was a brilliant deduction by Caitlin at USLA's
USADA that two steroids were combined to form THG that enabled the test
(even after the vial was given to them from the Conte competitor on the
East Coast, who last I checked is still coaching strong).
>
> There are two ways of attacking this problem. One is simply to
> archive players urine or blood samples so that testers can look at
> them after new tests are developed. That puts players in a position
> of knowing that they'll be caught after the fact even if they get away
> with doping in the short run. The other (which happens to be under
> development by some scientists where I work) is to develop a
> biological test instead of a chemical one. The idea is that
> biologists can develop a version of the body's own way of detecting
> steroids, which will then give a positive result for anything that
> functions as a steroid even if the testers don't know exactly what it
> is.
>
Ah, sounds like an antigen based test, not that I'm a
biologist/chemist. Brilliant. Good work.
> >What's equally interesting is how these "designer steroids" are
> >semi-legal--because Congress has specifically forbade certain "old
> >fashioned" steroids, but by definition they have not and cannot make
> >illegal stuff that has not been designed yet (without disrupting all of
> >the legitimate pharma industry).
>
> That's not actually true, though. The normal practice is that any
> potential drug is illegal until it goes through a testing process to
> ensure that it's safe and effective.
Pace vitamins, as you know they don't fall under FDA purview.
> And the government can (and
> does) classify broad categories of chemical compounds as illegal (or
> illegal without a prescription) rather than enumerating every possible
> drug.
http://www.herbalgram.org/iherb/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2780
I see the 2004 "Designer Steroid" law excempts DHEA, which apparently
is a sort of steroid precursor found in many dietary suppliments and
which may be what you are referring to below.
>
> The real problem is the idiotic "dietary supplements" law, which
> leaves an enormous gaping loophole in the FDA drug approval process.
> Drug peddlers are allowed to sell their wares as long as they claim
> that their naturally occuring substances that might exist in our diets
> and they avoid making specific claims about their effects. It
> effectively eviscerates the FDA, and is one of the most ridiculous
> things that Congress did in a long time.
I don't know about "most ridiculous"--you cannot ban everything to
solve a minor problem like leveling the playing field for professional
sports--but it's a good point you make.
Thanks,
RL
Eric Ramon
raylopez99 wrote:
> Yes. And Bud Selig wants it that way. In fact, many people have
> pointed out that there's an incentive not to rock the boat. As a very
> astute track star once said, without steroids, who wants to see the
> men's 100 meters being run at 11 seconds flat? Boring.
>
> Ray
11 seconds for 100 meters is really, really fast. Have you ever been in
a race with anyone who can do that? I have and it's pretty awesome.
If the record for that distance were still 10.4 or so (Jesse Owen's
style) then we'd be going "wow! 10.4!!" Seriously, if you'd be bored
with whatever the best times would be then why aren't you bored with
all of these 9.9s? C'mon, let's see some 8.8s!!
Realto Margarino
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > Yes. And Bud Selig wants it that way. In fact, many people
> > have pointed out that there's an incentive not to rock the boat.
> > As a very astute track star once said, without steroids, who
> > wants to see the men's 100 meters being run at 11 seconds flat?
> > Boring.
> 11 seconds for 100 meters is really, really fast. Have you ever
> been in a race with anyone who can do that? I have and it's pretty
> awesome.
What were you driving?
cordially, as always,
rm