OT: 2000 Yankees*

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

It wasn't banned by MLB until 2 years ago.


HGH wasn't banned by MLB until Jan. 2005

By Tom Haudricourt
Thursday, Dec 13 2007, 02:54 PM

Human Growth Hormone, the performance-enhancing substance Eric Gagne was accused of purchasing in 2004 in the Mitchell Report released today, wasn't added to the list of banned substances by Major League Baseball until January 2005.

http://blogs.jsonline.com/brewers/archive/2007/12/13/hgh-wasn-t-banned-by-mlb-until-jan-2005.aspx

Argh, searching for this stuff is a pain right now. I'm not coming up with any links, so I can only ask you to listen and consider what I say (rather than being able to back it up with evidence). What I'm referring to is the fact that the US Government classifies HGH with steroids. Baseball had a (weak, unenforcible) policy that whatever the government considers illegal steroids are not allowed in baseball. Ergo, HGH was not allowed by baseball.

They didn't specifically ban it, but I don't know if they really needed to. Besides, the initial drug program was fought hard by the union and MLB had to make concessions just to get it approved. Is it really an excuse that HGH wasn't banned in the initial policy when the player's union wouldn't allow it to be?

 

[Real World]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

Argh, searching for this stuff is a pain right now. I'm not coming up with any links, so I can only ask you to listen and consider what I say (rather than being able to back it up with evidence). What I'm referring to is the fact that the US Government classifies HGH with steroids. Baseball had a (weak, unenforcible) policy that whatever the government considers illegal steroids are not allowed in baseball. Ergo, HGH was not allowed by baseball.

They didn't specifically ban it, but I don't know if they really needed to. Besides, the initial drug program was fought hard by the union and MLB had to make concessions just to get it approved. Is it really an excuse that HGH wasn't banned in the initial policy when the player's union wouldn't allow it to be?

I understand what your saying, but the fact that they moved to specifically ban it in 2005 makes the issue clouded. Remember though that HGH is not a steroid.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

I understand what your saying, but the fact that they moved to specifically ban it in 2005 makes the issue clouded. Remember though that HGH is not a steroid.

I agree...I think the Rodney issue made everyone take a little bit harder look at HGH since it was someone we wanted to give the benefit of the doubt. Since then, I've done likewise to others who have admitted using HGH. So I really don't hold it against Petitte too much, and he came out and owned up, so I got no beef with him.

Roger, I do think his success is a little tainted. I say a little, b/c I'm so damn sick of the steroid and baseball talk, all the * talk, etc. I guess I've gradually moved into the mindset of "almost everybody's doing it", so how can you single out one guy or one team?

 

[Foley]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

Argh, searching for this stuff is a pain right now. I'm not coming up with any links, so I can only ask you to listen and consider what I say (rather than being able to back it up with evidence). What I'm referring to is the fact that the US Government classifies HGH with steroids. Baseball had a (weak, unenforcible) policy that whatever the government considers illegal steroids are not allowed in baseball. Ergo, HGH was not allowed by baseball.

The next line in the article posted goes along with what you're saying:
"HGH obtained without a prescription is a violation of federal law. Writing a prescription for HGH for unauthorized use -- including athletic performance -- also violates federal law."

Someone who used HGH before 2005 should be viewed the same as someone who used it after 2005, because in both cases the user knew that it was in violation of the rules, and knew that using it was frowned upon by the MLB. Just because they hadn't officially banned it doesn't mean that using it was OK.

The government, and thus MLB, viewed the use of HGH to heal faster as on the same level as using steroids to get an extra 3mph on their fastball. Maybe there is a different in some peoples eyes, but in the eyes of the law Pettitte's use of HGH is on par with Bonds's use of steroids.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

I agree...I think the Rodney issue made everyone take a little bit harder look at HGH since it was someone we wanted to give the benefit of the doubt. Since then, I've done likewise to others who have admitted using HGH. So I really don't hold it against Petitte too much, and he came out and owned up, so I got no beef with him.

Roger, I do think his success is a little tainted. I say a little, b/c I'm so damn sick of the steroid and baseball talk, all the * talk, etc. I guess I've gradually moved into the mindset of "almost everybody's doing it", so how can you single out one guy or one team?

Do you really believe Pettitte? He got caught and admitted to the smallest and most excusable infraction. Oh, and this was after years of lying. Maybe I'm too cynical but I have no reason to believe him now.

As for Clemens, his success is definitely tainted. What I find amusing is that the Mitchell Report was such a huge revelation to many. Guys don't naturally become better players in their 40s, and he has undergone the same head growth Bonds did. Add to this the fact he's a narcissistic bastard (again, like Bonds) and I never really doubted he was juiced. Guys like he and Bonds think they deserve everything and think they can do whatever they want to achieve their goals. Why wouldn't he use steroids/HGH?

I have moved into the everyone's doing it mindset, though. Unless there's HoF consideration I don't really care who did or didn't use. I don't really care that Brian Roberts used.

 

[scout]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

As for Clemens, his success is definitely tainted. What I find amusing is that the Mitchell Report was such a huge revelation to many. Guys don't naturally become better players in their 40s, and he has undergone the same head growth Bonds did. Add to this the fact he's a narcissistic bastard (again, like Bonds) and I never really doubted he was juiced. Guys like he and Bonds think they deserve everything and think they can do whatever they want to achieve their goals. Why wouldn't he use steroids/HGH?

.

The guy that made the accusations in the Mitchell report, if caught lying goes to the big house, big time. The one guy who is looking better and better is Conseco. Huge ego and all, but you know what, he told the truth (as of right now he's fairly right-on). The one player who will be under the huge microscope next year, A-Rod. Bonds and Clemons will be gone, and if Jose is right, whoa.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

Do you really believe Pettitte? He got caught and admitted to the smallest and most excusable infraction. Oh, and this was after years of lying. Maybe I'm too cynical but I have no reason to believe him now.

As for Clemens, his success is definitely tainted. What I find amusing is that the Mitchell Report was such a huge revelation to many. Guys don't naturally become better players in their 40s, and he has undergone the same head growth Bonds did. Add to this the fact he's a narcissistic bastard (again, like Bonds) and I never really doubted he was juiced. Guys like he and Bonds think they deserve everything and think they can do whatever they want to achieve their goals. Why wouldn't he use steroids/HGH?

I have moved into the everyone's doing it mindset, though. Unless there's HoF consideration I don't really care who did or didn't use. I don't really care that Brian Roberts used.

Pettitte could be lying, but at this point, I feel like "who cares"? Even if there's HOF consideration involved, with so many guys juicing, taking supplements, I just don't know if you can rule out people who have been caught considering so many people in the league were doing it. It almost levels the playing field when you look at it as "everybody was cheating".

But maybe while I don't think admitted juicers are completely tarnished, I do think players who haven't been associated with any kind of performance enhancers should be seen in a more positive light, as in, they did it the right way & they did it against a league full of cheaters. IE, Manny Ramirez and his numbers are even more impressive when you consider he was going up against a Roger or a Pettitte or anybody who might've been on roids/HGH, etc.

 

[Real World]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

The next line in the article posted goes along with what you're saying:
"HGH obtained without a prescription is a violation of federal law. Writing a prescription for HGH for unauthorized use -- including athletic performance -- also violates federal law."

Someone who used HGH before 2005 should be viewed the same as someone who used it after 2005, because in both cases the user knew that it was in violation of the rules, and knew that using it was frowned upon by the MLB. Just because they hadn't officially banned it doesn't mean that using it was OK.

The government, and thus MLB, viewed the use of HGH to heal faster as on the same level as using steroids to get an extra 3mph on their fastball. Maybe there is a different in some peoples eyes, but in the eyes of the law Pettitte's use of HGH is on par with Bonds's use of steroids.

You can't take federal law and apply it to MLB, when MLB specifically banned the substance in 2005. The only thing that applies to a sport, is what that specific sport bans.

 

[Real World]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

Do you really believe Pettitte? He got caught and admitted to the smallest and most excusable infraction. Oh, and this was after years of lying. Maybe I'm too cynical but I have no reason to believe him now.

As for Clemens, his success is definitely tainted. What I find amusing is that the Mitchell Report was such a huge revelation to many. Guys don't naturally become better players in their 40s, and he has undergone the same head growth Bonds did. Add to this the fact he's a narcissistic bastard (again, like Bonds) and I never really doubted he was juiced. Guys like he and Bonds think they deserve everything and think they can do whatever they want to achieve their goals. Why wouldn't he use steroids/HGH?

I have moved into the everyone's doing it mindset, though. Unless there's HoF consideration I don't really care who did or didn't use. I don't really care that Brian Roberts used.

Where I generally agree with you, and don't doubt that Clemens could have (and most likely did) use the juice, you can't certify that he did. Furthermore, you can't conclude that every single player will not perform in their 40's. When it comes to pitchers, I think of the man that Clemens is commonly compared to, and that's Nolan Ryan. Ryan pitched dominantly in his 40's. No one ever alleged that he juiced.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Re: Ot: 2000 Nyy*

Where I generally agree with you, and don't doubt that Clemens could have (and most likely did) use the juice, you can't certify that he did. Furthermore, you can't conclude that every single player will not perform in their 40's. When it comes to pitchers, I think of the man that Clemens is commonly compared to, and that's Nolan Ryan. Ryan pitched dominantly in his 40's. No one ever alleged that he juiced.

I agree that there is no difinitive proof of Clemens's use. I don't really need it, though. I was already pretty sure he had used (via circumstantial evidence) and that we now have someone backing that up. The honus is on him to convince me otherwise.

Except that Ryan hardly dominated in his 40s, and wasn't as good as he was in his prime. He put up ERAs of 4 in his 40s. Clemens had the greatest season of his career in his 40s.

And I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Ryan had help in his 40s either.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I read Rob Neyer's ESPN blog today and it related to this discussion.

Cosh does stumble, as so many do, when he writes, "Few of those named in the report ever broke any specific rule of baseball ..." That is absolutely false. As the Mitchell report concisely notes: "Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball's drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball's drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then."

Got that, everybody? 1991.

That's what I was getting at. Tangentally, I think Rob Neyer might be the best active sportswriter.

*edit* I might as well give the link. I don't know if it goes to his most recent post and will therefore be less useful in a few days but whatever: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob&univLogin02=stateChanged