Feds follow trail to Clemens and Pettitte

[Skin & Bones]

Separately, according to a source who used to work with McNamee, federal investigators have pursued a money trail through computer files that have led them directly back to Clemens and teammate Andy Pettitte, who also employed McNamee as his personal trainer. The noose has tightened, according to the source, and it will all come out before long.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/11/01/clemens.real/

[hellborn]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/em_swift/11/01/clemens.real/

You know, couldn't Clemens' bizarre behavior in throwing that bat shard at Piazza in an apparent brief rage be consistent with the emotional effects of steroid use?
May sound like a joke, but I'm not kidding...that was so strange that I find it hard to explain without bringing in an emotional disorder or a severely disturbed psyche. And, steroid users are known to suffer from bouts of extreme aggression and/or rage...

Wow, if it turns out that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all using...we have a decade or so of baseball history that should just be wiped out.

[PopTop]

Nothing like a good witch hunt :rolleyes:

We should open up files from the 60s and 70s and find out which players were taking greenies and throw those two decades out as well.

[Old Sweater]

You know, couldn't Clemens' bizarre behavior in throwing that bat shard at Piazza in an apparent brief rage be consistent with the emotional effects of steroid use?
May sound like a joke, but I'm not kidding...that was so strange that I find it hard to explain without bringing in an emotional disorder or a severely disturbed psyche. And, steroid users are known to suffer from bouts of extreme aggression and/or rage...

Wow, if it turns out that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all using...we have a decade or so of baseball history that should just be wiped out.


If all cheating counts like steriods, all of baseball history would be wiped out.

[EvanAparra]

Nothing like a good witch hunt :rolleyes:

We should open up files from the 60s and 70s and find out which players were taking greenies and throw those two decades out as well.
only a witch hunt when its astros involved?

[Skin & Bones]

You know, couldn't Clemens' bizarre behavior in throwing that bat shard at Piazza in an apparent brief rage be consistent with the emotional effects of steroid use?
May sound like a joke, but I'm not kidding...that was so strange that I find it hard to explain without bringing in an emotional disorder or a severely disturbed psyche. And, steroid users are known to suffer from bouts of extreme aggression and/or rage...

Wow, if it turns out that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all using...we have a decade or so of baseball history that should just be wiped out.

Many steroid users actually say roid rage is a myth. Including Canseco, and Paxton Crawford. And wipe out a decade full of stats ? You have to be kidding.

[Astro]

only a witch hunt when its astros involved?
I've been saying its one big witch hunt since the beginning... People dont really care about the steroids, as is proof with players such as Mota getting suspended for them and not much is said, they just want to see a big-name player brought down... if this happens the media can sell papers and make money, its all about the $$$

[EvanAparra]

I've been saying its one big witch hunt since the beginning...
So accusing Bonds and Palmeiro was a witch hunt as well? Every accusation isn't a witch hunt, if you think like that then everyone would get away with everything.

[Astro]

So accusing Bonds and Palmeiro was a witch hunt as well? Every accusation isn't a witch hunt, if you think like that then everyone would get away with everything.
Give me legal proof beyond guilt through association for Barry Bonds

Palmeiro tested positive, so he was on them... that is not a witch hunt because there is evidence to support it

[Brian McKenna]

I'm at a loss why one would prefer to be left ignorant than to have an investigation. Witch hunt? Rather it sounds like essential information we all should know.

[Astro]

I'm at a loss why one would prefer to be left ignorant than to have an investigation. Witch hunt? Rather it sounds like essential information we all should know.
There is a difference between investigating to see if a player took steroids, and everyone clammering on about how they thought so-and-so took them... BIG difference

I dont really mind people getting investigated to show they are innocent, but when a report like this comes thru with no proof at all and people start talking about how so-and-so exhibited aggression during a game it must be 'roid rage (which also has very little evidence of exhisting)

[EvanAparra]

Give me legal proof beyond guilt through association for Barry Bonds

Palmeiro tested positive, so he was on them... that is not a witch hunt because there is evidence to support it

So its a witch hunt to investigate those that have some sort of connection to them? The FEDs aren't saying that so-and-so took roids, they are investigating, which is not a witch hunt.

[Astro]

So its a witch hunt to investigate those that have some sort of connection to them? The FEDs aren't saying that so-and-so took roids, they are investigating, which is not a witch hunt.
The witch-hunt exhists within the fans and the media, which is what I'm refering to...

As soon as someone is found to be being investigated for PED use, their name is dragged through the mud (if they are a superstar, if they are not it is most commonly ignored, even if they test positive (see Mota's thread has 17 posts in it, if it was for Bonds it would have 170)) and they are belittled and everyone starts to talk about how they can remember certain episodes to prove they took PEDs... these episodes include "roid rage" (which, as I stated, has little evidence to back it up), rapid growth, super-human strength, elevated endurance and so on

[PopTop]

only a witch hunt when its astros involved?No, Evan, it has nothing to do with what teams these players have performed with over the years. If you had read other posts I've made on this subject along the way, you wouldn't have been drawn to your hasty conclusion from this post.

It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of baseball players, and other sports as well, had used or at least tried steroids and other supplements along the way. Like I have been saying all along, the crime to me was never that players used the stuff, but that it took so long for everyone - - Players, Owners, Media and Fans - - to get the mess cleaned up. Everyone turned a blind eye along the way and , at least for a while, was more than content with watching a bunch of bulked-up players drive pitches over the fences at an alarming rate.

And if you don't think this is a witch hunt now, that the media is salivating buckets like Pavlov's dog at a bell-ringing concert to get at certain individual players just to see their names on some byline, then you're turning another blind eye to this event.

[ESPNFan]

I'm at a loss why one would prefer to be left ignorant than to have an investigation. Witch hunt? Rather it sounds like essential information we all should know.

Exactly. I want to know the truth and I want to know more about what MLB league officials knew than who was taking them. I can't wait to hear waht Mr. Mitchell comes up with and how much of it implicates MLB leadership.

Good article BTW. Mr. Swift must have read my posts here about the East Germans, as he certainly did his research:D .

[cardsfanatic]

So accusing Bonds and Palmeiro was a witch hunt as well? Every accusation isn't a witch hunt, if you think like that then everyone would get away with everything.

Palmeiro was far as a witch hunt. He actually failed a drug test. I'm not naive enough to believe that Bonds probably didn't roid. But with Palmeiro there is absolutely no room for doubt. So there is a difference between the two. There's grey area in Bonds case. For Palmeiro it's pretty much case closed; he's a roider.

[Astro]

that the media is salivating buckets like Pavlov's dog at a bell-ringing concert

Hahaha... HILARIOUS :clapping

[Skin & Bones]

I could agree with Astro. An example is how people use Barry's weight gain throughout his career to prove steroid use, as if no other player in history has gained over 25 pounds of muscle in a 20 year span. Also, the " growing head " rumor, which even Jose Canseco laughs about. It was funny when he ripped Jeff Pearlmen on the Donny Deutsch show about that.

[Astro]

By no means am I saying not to investigate players if there is reasonable doubt, what I AM SAYING is that players should be innocent until proven guilty... that is rarely, if ever, the case when it comes to PED use in baseball

[EvanAparra]

No, Evan, it has nothing to do with what teams these players have performed with over the years. If you had read other posts I've made on this subject along the way, you wouldn't have been drawn to your hasty conclusion from this post.


I actually tried to remember any posts of your on the subject, and the only one I remembered was your posts on Pettitte and Clemens in the Astros forum, which led me to the conclusion. I can't spend an hour looking up all the posts you've ever made, which is why I asked you the question, not made a conclusion.

[Skin & Bones]

By no means am I saying not to investigate players if there is reasonable doubt, what I AM SAYING is that players should be innocent until proven guilty... that is rarely, if ever, the case when it comes to PED use in baseball

Atleast when it comes to PED use in Modern Baseball. Any talk of PED use pre-1980 results in a barrage of insults tossed your way.

[Skin & Bones]

Exactly. I want to know the truth and I want to know more about what MLB league officials knew than who was taking them. I can't wait to hear waht Mr. Mitchell comes up with and how much of it implicates MLB leadership.

Good article BTW. Mr. Swift must have read my posts here about the East Germans, as he certainly did his research:D .

What research, that he said this ? Anabolic steroids have been around since the 1930s, so it's at least conceivable that Aaron had access to them. But it wasn't until East German scientists started surreptitiously supplying anabolic steroids to their Olympic athletes in the late 1960s that it was discovered that steroids in large doses significantly improved athletic performance in sports beside weightlifting.

I have always said these drugs have been around since the 1930's, and it's possible that older players did have access to them. Whether they used them or not can't be proven, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The East German athletes in a whole may have been the first to take a variety of steroids all at once, but it's possible that others tried it previously just due to curiousity.

[ESPNFan]

Atleast when it comes to PED use in Modern Baseball. Any talk of PED use pre-1980 results in a barrage of insults tossed your way.

Damn, were in repeats already.....:ughh I feel like I'm watching the Soprano's.

[Nomtoc]

Give me legal proof beyond guilt through association for Barry Bonds...

It's called Game of Shadows. Good book, easy read and more than enough proof.

[EvanAparra]

It's called Game of Shadows. Good book, easy read and more than enough proof.
Hardly proof. Like Canseco's book was proof of anything?

[Nomtoc]

This isn't Canseco's book. However after reading Juiced I have little doubt as to him telling the truth.

[EvanAparra]

This isn't Canseco's book. However after reading Juiced I have little doubt as to him telling the truth.
It's not?!?!?!?!

[Astro]

It's called Game of Shadows. Good book, easy read and more than enough proof.
Wow... is this some kind of joke? I surely hope so, if not then I'll take your post as someone not knowing any better

[ESPNFan]

I have always said these drugs have been around since the 1930's, and it's possible that older players did have access to them. Whether they used them or not can't be proven, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. The East German athletes in a whole may have been the first to take a variety of steroids all at once, but it's possible that others tried it previously just due to curiousity.

Just because the Drugs were around doesn't mean people knew what they were, how to use them or even where to get them. Take Andro. That was discovered in the late 1930's and it was overlooked because it didn't do much on its own. It wasn't until it was coupled with Steroids by the East German's 30 years later that its real benefits were known.
Same goes with Testosterone and then later the synthesized steroids (dianabol etc...) It wasn't until later that people realised that Anabolics helped athletes across the board, not just powerlifters.
Given baseball's stigma agisnt lifting weight at the time and your insistance on how these drugs only work if you work "very hard" it seems less and less probable that ballplayers were using these drugs in anything other than isolated incidents. Possible is miles away from likely.

[Skin & Bones]

It's not?!?!?!?!

No, it isn't. And Game of Shadows does not prove for a fact that Bonds used steroids.

Here's a good review of the book on Barnes and Nobles.com, that shares my exact sentiments regarding the book.

I read the excerpt of the book that was in Sports Illustrated, then decided to buy the book to read about its coverage of baseball steroids. About 1/2 the book covers baseball and the other 1/2 covers the world of track and field. To be honest, the excerpt in SI covered pretty much all the pertinent info for baseball--they just add more details about Victor Conte and pad it out a lot. The evidence against Bonds--whom the authors clearly make the primary subject of the book--isn't as solid or conclusive as the authors try to lead you to believe. Many people claim someone else told them Bonds was taking all kinds of steroids, but it all goes back to Conte bragging about everything. There were a few charts with Bonds's names on them that could very likely indicate illegal steroid use, but I was surprised by the real lack of info that the authors seemed to have. I'm not going to say that Bonds did not take steroids--just that the facts in this book wouldn't be able to convince an educated person that it was 100% likely that he did. Besides their steroid coverage, the authors seem to have two other slants that are quite obvious throughout the book: (a)make their hometown newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle look like it was a Godsend for steroid reporting (without which nothing would have ever happened) and (b)make Bonds look like the most despicable human you could imagine. We all know he's rude and arrogant, but it was a little too obvious that the authors were unable to contain their biases. There were also several typos in the book--leaving out words and even one case where they listed an event as taking place in December in one paragraph and then said it took place in September two paragraphs later, indicating the book was prepared hastily. A definite read if you're interested in steroid use in the world of track/field, or in the evolution of BALCO, but I'd save the money and just buy the SI with the excerpt in it if you want to read about what the book covers relating to Bonds and steroids.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9781592401994&z=y

[EvanAparra]

No, it isn't.

I know that, I was being sarcastic.:lookitup

[Skin & Bones]

Just because the Drugs were around doesn't mean people knew what they were, how to use them or even where to get them. Take Andro. That was discovered in the late 1930's and it was overlooked because it didn't do much on its own. It wasn't until it was coupled with Steroids by the East German's 30 years later that its real benefits were known.
Same goes with Testosterone and then later the synthesized steroids (dianabol etc...) It wasn't until later that people realised that Anabolics helped athletes across the board, not just powerlifters.
Given baseball's stigma agisnt lifting weight at the time and your insistance on how these drugs only work if you work "very hard" it seems less and less probable that ballplayers were using these drugs in anything other than isolated incidents. Possible is miles away from likely.

They could of easily been used for recovery. After all, the best benefit of these drugs is faster recovery from your workouts, and injuries, and any activity in general. Not to mention the increased confidence these drugs provide an athlete, and stamina. Were they used by anyone besides Tom House back then ? I don't know. I know Amphetamines were, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me if some players back then dabbled with steroids just to see what kind of benefits it would give them.

And a weight gain could be seen while on steroids, and not working out and dieting properly, it's water retention.

[ESPNFan]

Hardly proof. Like Canseco's book was proof of anything?

Just like Game of Shadows you have to look at Jose's book on a case by Case basis. Is what he is saying plausible? Is there proof backing him up or evidence that he was wrong, and does what he says seem like hyperbole or fact. You have to take it with a grain of salt but also give him a bit of credibility too. He was right about Palmeiro when nobody whould have believed Raffy was a user.

[Astro]

Perhaps I should have been more specific... when I say legal material evidence I mean evidence that was found, legally, by investigators... such as a positive steroid test, syringe's that were used by Bonds, Bonds having possesion of steroids such as "The Cream" or "The Clear"....

Give me proof, give me evidence, dont give me "he said/she said"

[Seattle1]

You know, couldn't Clemens' bizarre behavior in throwing that bat shard at Piazza in an apparent brief rage be consistent with the emotional effects of steroid use?...that was so strange that I find it hard to explain without bringing in an emotional disorder or a severely disturbed psyche. And, steroid users are known to suffer from bouts of extreme aggression and/or rage...

I concur with this as well. I've wondered about Clemens ever since that season. Don't forget he threw that bean ball at Piazza's head earlier that year too.

[Astro]

There is little to no proof that "Roid Rage" exists..........

[Nomtoc]

That "review" is based on a small excerpt from the book and therefore is not a review at all.

[Nomtoc]

Perhaps I should have been more specific... when I say legal material evidence I mean evidence that was found, legally, by investigators... such as a positive steroid test, syringe's that were used by Bonds, Bonds having possesion of steroids such as "The Cream" or "The Clear"....

Give me proof, give me evidence, dont give me "he said/she said"

All of that is in court documents; most of which have the ballplayers names blacked out. However the evidence is obvious.

[Skin & Bones]

That "review" is based on a small excerpt from the book and therefore is not a review at all.

No, it's based on the parts about Barry Bonds, and how it doesn't prove for a fact that he used illegal steroids. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. Those who take the book as 100% gospel choose to do so.

[ESPNFan]

They could of easily been used for recovery. After all, the best benefit of these drugs is faster recovery from your workouts, and injuries, and any activity in general. Not to mention the increased confidence these drugs provide an athlete, and stamina. Were they used by anyone besides Tom House back then ? I don't know. I know Amphetamines were, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me if some players back then dabbled with steroids just to see what kind of benefits it would give them.

And a weight gain could be seen while on steroids, and not working out and dieting properly, it's water retention.

They could have been used for recovery if they knew about that benefit, which is not very likely at all. The only commonly known benefits were size and strenght increase and those benefits are contrary to conventional baseball wisdom at the time. Would a ballplayer know even how to use them if they got hold of them somehow? Unlikely.

And HIV and Cancer patients who suffer from wasiting symptoms accociated with those diseases are able to reverse the effects with little exersize and normal diets and therapudic levels of Anabolics.

[Astro]

All of that is in court documents; most of which have the ballplayers names blacked out. However the evidence is obvious.
Ok so the names are blacked out but it is plausible evidence? Please, this is why I call it a witch hunt... naive people who read one biased book about a subject and clinge to everything negative they hear...

I really wish people would actually listen when they are completly wrong...

Oh well, cant help everyone...

[Nomtoc]

No, it's based on the parts about Barry Bonds, and how it doesn't prove for a fact that he used illegal steroids. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. Those who take the book as 100% gospel choose to do so.
No one is taking it as gospel. However it does take a complete blind fool to negate the evidence.

[Nomtoc]

Ok so the names are blacked out but it is plausible evidence? Please, this is why I call it a witch hunt... naive people who read one biased book about a subject and clinge to everything negative they hear...

I really wish people would actually listen when they are completly wrong...

Oh well, cant help everyone...


What a joke. You seem to think that your opinion is righteous and anything to the contrary is someone being naive (at least you spelled that word correctly) simply based on what; opinion? You also have no idea as to everything I have read leading to my conclusion.

[Skin & Bones]

They could have been used for recovery if they knew about that benefit, which is not very likely at all. The only commonly known benefits were size and strenght increase and those benefits are contrary to conventional baseball wisdom at the time. Would a ballplayer know even how to use them if they got hold of them somehow? Unlikely.

Know how to use them ? Well Tom House isn't exactly someone who knew how to use them, and yet he admits he saw the recovery benefit of steroids. While he's one of the very few pitchers who didn't see the velocity of his fastball increase ( due to his heavy and constant abuse of the drugs, IMO), he did notice faster recovery from his workouts.

And the only thing that was " contrary to the conventional baseball wisdom at the time " was building muscle. Not recovering faster from injuries and workouts, which doesn't necessarily have to be lifting weights. And even so, it's common knowledge that drinking booze could hinder one's performance, yet Mantle felt the need to do it, and probably hinder an already outstanding career.

And HIV and Cancer patients who suffer from wasiting symptoms accociated with those diseases are able to reverse the effects with little exersize and normal diets and therapudic levels of Anabolics.

Reverse what effects? Was the weight gain they supposedly seen in actual Muscle ? And if so, how much ?

[Astro]

What a joke. You seem to think that your opinion is righteous and anything to the contrary is someone being naive (at least you spelled that word correctly) simply based on what; your opinion? You also have no idea as to everything I have read leading to my conclusion.
Obviously not too much, since all you can give me as solid evidence is a court document where the names are blacked out...

I suppose I am wrong, I mean who needs evidence to convict someone anyway...

[Skin & Bones]

No one is taking it as gospel. However it does take a complete blind fool to negate the evidence.

Negate what evidence ?

I've read the book twice, and have gone through specific parts several times, and in no way shape or form does it prove he used illegal steroids. None of the sources listed witnessed Bonds using steroids. The closest thing to that was a passage on pg. 298 stating that agent Novitsky was told by Conte that Bonds used steroids. And Conte has denied that several times.

[Nomtoc]

Obviously not too much, since all you can give me as solid evidence is a court document where the names are blacked out...

I suppose I am wrong, I mean who needs evidence to convict someone anyway...

Not sure about you being wrong but there is nothing supporting you being correct either.

[Astro]

Not sure about you being wrong but there is nothing supporting you being correct either.
EXACTLY... Someone is supposed to be, in the United States, INNONCENT until proven guilty...

It is a witch hunt because anyone who is accused is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT

[Nomtoc]

Negate what evidence ?

I've read the book twice, and have gone through specific parts several times, and in no way shape or form does it prove he used illegal steroids. None of the sources listed witnessed Bonds using steroids. The closest thing to that was a passage on pg. 298 stating that agent Novitsky was told by Conte that Bonds used steroids. And Conte has denied that several times.

Conte spent jail time for not doing as instructed by the courts. He didn't deny anything to the courts, he simply refused to cooperate. It wasn't until after he was released that he denied anything and this was to the media, not the courts.

[Nomtoc]

EXACTLY... Someone is supposed to be, in the United States, INNONCENT until proven guilty...

It is a witch hunt because anyone who is accused is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT


The evidence of his head growing vastly (as seen in the photos) should be enough for anyone not blinded by their own personal agenda.

[Nomtoc]

EXACTLY... Someone is supposed to be, in the United States, INNONCENT until proven guilty...

It is a witch hunt because anyone who is accused is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT


That's pretty much the way this entire system is run these days.

[Astro]

The evidence of his head growing vastly (as seen in the photos) should be enough for anyone not blinded by their own personal agenda.
Actual his "head growing" only supports those who cant get any real evidence and hold a grudge against Barry Bonds

[Skin & Bones]

Conte spent jail time for not doing as instructed by the courts. He didn't deny anything to the courts, he simply refused to cooperate. It wasn't until after he was released that he denied anything and this was to the media, not the courts.

Right, and this still doesn't prove anyone's guilt, nor does your " head growing " comment either. Conte has stated he would provide evidence that most of what's in the book is lies, when he's going to do that is anyone's guess.

FTR, I believe Bonds used illegal steroids for a good amount of time at the end of his career, but I'm not going to roast the man, or call for an asterisk to be placed next to his slew of records until It's proven for a fact that he used them. And even so, I still wouldn't do that. I would want him however to face the penalty, whichever it is, depending on the years it's proven that he used steroids. From 2002-2005, it's a 10 game suspension, and after 2005, a fifty game suspension. If he used before 2002, then he should see the teams physician. As that was the penalty from 1991-2001.

[Nomtoc]

Actual his "head growing" only supports those who cant get any real evidence and hold a grudge against Barry Bonds

Then explain first of all why I see the evidence as real (seeing as how I have no grudge against him) and secondly how a human head can possibly grow that much years after reaching maturity.

And if you think I'm actually interested in your opinion of my belief system you are definitely wrong.

[Nomtoc]

Here, I'll give you a head start.

Growth and Development: An Overview
Author: Ludwig von Hahn
I. An Overview

Understanding the growth and development of the human organism requires an understanding of nature and nurture, and the complex interplay between the two.

Growth
Implies a physical change, usually resulting from either an increase in cell number or cell size
Development:
A change or modification in a person’s capacity to function; the enhancement of a skill

Age-related norms for growth and development must be interpreted in context. The PATTERN of growth and development is much more important than the particular size of a child or the particular collection of developmental skills the child may possess at any given point in time.
II. Overview of Physical Growth

Growth in young people occurs in the following pattern:

1. Relatively rapid growth during infancy with a gradual deceleration until about the fourth year of life
2. A slow but uniform period of growth until puberty
3. A prominent adolescent growth spurt
4. A relatively gradual decrease in the rate of growth until completion of maturity, usually after age 20.

Differences in the size of adults between populations depends on differences in the gene pools of those populations as well as differences in environmental factors. There are differences in the size of Asians when compared to Caucasians, for example. However, Asians who grow up in the United States are generally taller and larger than Asians who grow up in Asia. Thus, genetic differences that may exist between these two populations can be mitigated by environmental factors.

Factors which affect growth are:

1. Genetic factors.
2. Maternal illnesses during pregnancy. Diabetes, endocrine diseases, diseases which affect placental sufficiency, etc., can affect foetal growth, even when these illnesses are adequately treated.
3. Maternal and family socio-economic disadvantages during and after pregnancy. Poor nutrition, lack of access to prenatal care, poor education, and inadequate treatment of maternal illnesses can affect maternal health. These factors thus also affect the size of the newborn, and usually continue to affect the size of the child after birth.
4. Maternal and family social/emotional problems during childhood. These factors, which may have affected the size of the newborn, can have an ongoing effect on the infant/child’s growth. Examples include poor nutrition and environmental or emotional deprivation. Emotional deprivation alone, or the absence of a stimulating environment, even in the presence of adequate nutrition, can result in growth failure. Notable examples of this occur in eastern European orphanages, where staff shortages result in minimal stimulation for the infants and children cared for at the orphanage.

Statistically speaking, the most important factor affecting a child's growth is her size at birth, and the factors that contributed to this. These factors tend to persist, and thus have an ongoing effect on growth.

Adolescent physical growth and development

Physiologically speaking, adolescence emerges as early as age 8 (girls) or 9 (boys), and as late as 14 in boys and girls. The two major events occurring during this time are a rapid increase in height and weight, and the development of sexual characteristics. Tanner staging is a method of evaluating the sexual maturity of an adolescent, and is based upon the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics (breast development in girls, penis and testicular development in boys, and pubic hair development in both). Sexual maturity is complete by the end of the teenage years.
III. Overview of Development

Brain Growth and Development

Nearly one half of the brain’s postnatal growth is achieved by the end of the first year, as witnessed by the impressive increase in head circumference. The enormous increase in head size is primarily accounted for by growth of the cerebral cortex. New cortical cells are added (neurons as well as dendritic cells), more connecting links are created, and cells become larger.

Myelination of brain cells (development of a sheath around each brain cell) is an important reason for the increase in head size as well. As different parts of the nervous system undergo myelination, the infant/toddler is capable of increasingly complex motor, verbal, and cognitive functions. The pattern of myelination results in a very predictable pattern of motor development:

* cephalad to caudal (head to tail)
* proximal to distal (from thorax to periphery)

Development in spheres other than the motor sphere is also predictable, but is not as clearly associated with myelinization patterns.

Development is divided into four major areas:

1. Motor
2. Speech/language
3. Cognitive
4. Social/emotional

A. Motor development

Motor milestones will be described in the lecture devoted to this topic. For the purposes of today’s lecture, it is sufficient to remember that motor development occurs in a cephalo-caudal, proximo-distal pattern. This means that the infant first achieves postural control of the head through control of the neck muscles, and is able to lift her head. Subsequently, she develops control of the shoulders, upper back, lower back, hips, etc. Arm and hand, and upper leg/lower leg motor control then also develops, subsequently extending to fingers and toes. The major accomplishments of the first year of life are the ability to stand, and the capacity for a pincer grasp. From here, motor development is programmed less from a biological/genetic perspective, and depends increasingly on environmental opportunities for refining and developing motor skills.
B. Speech and Language development

The development of speech and language skills also follow predictable patterns.

1. Infant communication: proto-conversations, in which parent and infant take turns responding through facial gestures.
2. Cooing: the infant makes vowel sounds
3. Babbling: the infant makes consonant sounds. Arises prior to six months
4. Jargon: speech-like sounds which include vowels, consonants, and prosody (the music of language) without actually using words. Arises prior to one year.
5. Single words. Usually arise by age one.
6. Two and three word sentences. Usually arise by age two.

The stages prior to jargon are largely biologically programmed. These abilities are present even if the environment does not provide a context for communication. However, jargon and words cannot develop without exposure to words. Thus, the neurobiological subtrate intended to produce speech (and motor skills for that matter) can only be “activated” if the infant is stimulated by his/her environment.

Depending on the degree of stimulation, the development of speech and language skills is potentially limitless. In medical school, you will learn a vast number of new words. The same holds true when learning a foreign language. These new words are linked to new concepts as well. The greater the demands of the environment, the greater the number of skills (words) that can potentially be acquired. The capacity of the brain to respond to this environmental stimulation does have limits, however. Not all people are able to learn the vocabulary of medical school, or of foreign languages, even if provided with the appropriate exposure.
C. Cognitive development: the work of Piaget

Piaget was the first child psychologist to map out child cognitive development in any detail. Much has been learned since he first published his work, and child psychologists have learned that the stages he presented are not necessarily acquired in the linear and ordered fashion he described. Nonetheless, his “map” of child development is still useful when attempting to understand various aspects of cognitive development.

Piaget divided child development into four stages:
1. Sensorimotor stage (ages 0 to 2)

In the sensorimotor stage, infants learn:

1. About their own body movements
2. That the movements of their body can have an effect on their environment
3. To coordinate two or more movements or activities to reach a goal
4. The concept of object permanence

The major cognitive development of the first two years of life is the acquisition of object permanence. The child can imagine an object, even when not seeing the object in front of him/herself. This is the start of representational thought.
2. The Preoperational stage: ages 2 to 4 or 5

"Operations" was a word Piaget coined to refer to ‘mental schemes’ or ‘mental strategies’. Today, these are perhaps better understood as neural schemes or neural connections. They come into play after the preschool years.

1. Cause and Effect Relationships. Preschoolers establish cause and effect relationships between two events through their proximity in space or time. Any two events close in time or space are related causally. This is called transductive reasoning. In a preschooler’s mind, a child can catch any and all illnesses by being close to someone with an illness. A preschooler might say that a child who misbehaved one day and caught a cold the next day caught that cold because of the misbehaviour. Transductive reasoning persists in the adult population, where a “cold” is said to come from “being cold."
2. The egocentricity of preschoolers. Preschoolers cannot understand that someone seeing an object from an angle different from themselves see the object differently from themselves.
3. Preschoolers cannot apprehend more than one concept at a time. This is illustrated by the concept of conservation of volume. Preschoolers are not able to understand that a liter of fluid in a tall, narrow container is the same volume as a liter of fluid in a short, wide container. They cannot apprehend two aspects of a problem such as this, eg. width and length, simultaneously.

3. The concrete operational stage: ages 5 to 11 or 12

1. The child learns operations such as:
1. addition,
2. subtraction,
3. multiplication,
4. division,
5. serial ordering
2. The child learns to conserve volume. Piaget considered this to be the major achievement of this age group. Conservation of number, substance, weight, and volume occur at different ages but in a specific order. There is a decline of egocentrism. Children at this stage are now able to imagine how others would perceive various situations.
3. The child is unable to understand hypothetical situations. Children at the concrete stage of operations have great difficulty accepting hypothetical situations. They are not able to answer a question based on a hypothetical proposition. For example, if you asked a child at a concrete operational stage of thinking: "If all dogs were pink, what colour would your dog be?", they would not be able to answer the question. They might answer: "Dogs aren't pink."

4. The stage of formal operations: Adolescence and beyond

Instead of thinking only about real things and actual occurrences, the adolescent must start to think about imaginary things and possible occurrences. Adolescents learn how to

* Use strategies for solving problems.
* Accept a proposition that may be completely ridiculous and make arguments or conclusions from this proposition.
* Understand abstractions (justice, liberty, etc.).
* Think about their own thinking.

[bryanac625]

Wow, if it turns out that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were all using...we have a decade or so of baseball history that should just be wiped out.

I disagree. As they say, you can't unscramble an egg. There are so many moments in baseball that could be "wiped out:"

Why not wipe out the 1919 World Series? It was fixed by the "Black Sox" who didn't play on the level. I also recall reading that the 1903 Series- the first one- may not have been played on the level either. Who knows how many games or series were lost to gamblers and crooked play? Players throwing games was the "steroids" of the early days of the game.

Why not throw out every major league record before 1947, when blacks finally got the chance to play the game? Was it really the national pastime if an entire section of the population was prohibited from playing?

I think baseball is just going to have to lie in its own steroid mess.

[SoxSon]

Nomtoc--
Please don't overdo it with unnecessarily long medical posts. Even if you want to use one to prove a point, you can shrink it a bit.

[Old Sweater]

I've been saying its one big witch hunt since the beginning... People dont really care about the steroids, as is proof with players such as Mota getting suspended for them and not much is said, they just want to see a big-name player brought down... if this happens the media can sell papers and make money, its all about the $$$

Your right. Scandal sells, look here, 3 pages already.

[ESPNFan]

And HIV and Cancer patients who suffer from wasiting symptoms accociated with those diseases are able to reverse the effects with little exersize and normal diets and therapudic levels of Anabolics.

Reverse what effects? Was the weight gain they supposedly seen in actual Muscle ? And if so, how much ?

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=652174&highlight=wasting#post652174

It was only two months ago I told you that was the case the last time but again we have to go over the same stuff over and over and over. Do you just pretend when your wrong that the information that refutes your argument doesn't exsist?

[ESPNFan]

There is little to no proof that "Roid Rage" exists..........

There is alot of proof that it exsists. Many animal studies have been done that validate its exsistance.

[Skin & Bones]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=652174&highlight=wasting#post652174

It was only two months ago I told you that was the case the last time but again we have to go over the same stuff over and over and over. Do you just pretend when your wrong that the information that refutes your argument doesn't exsist?

I read that article before, and those " 3 pounds " were never proven to be actual solid muscle.

Here's what your article says:People with HIV who are treated with anabolic steroids to prevent AIDS wasting may realize modest gains in weight and muscle mass, a new review shows.

The review covered 13 studies of adults age 24 to 42 with HIV, 294 of whom received anabolic steroids for at least six weeks and 238 of whom received placebo. The average weight increase in those taking anabolic steroids was nearly three pounds.

“The magnitude of weight gain observed may be considered clinically relevant,” said lead author Karen Johns, a medical assessment officer from the agency Health Canada. “One hopes there would be greater weight gain with the long-term use of anabolic steroids; however, this has not been proven to date in clinical trials.”

Nowhere in that article does it specifically state that these " patients " gain 3 pounds of actual solid muscle.


Also, here's one of the many articles debunking that common misconception.

Taking steroids will make me huge.

Not true, strength training and correct nutrition will grow muscle. Taking steroids without training will not make you muscular.

Most steroids allow faster muscle growth through greater recovery, while others help increase strength which allows for greater stress to be put onto a muscle. Without food to build the muscle or training to stimulate it nothing will happen. Most of the weight gain seen with the use of some steroids is due to water retention and is not actual muscle.

http://www.19.5degs.com/element/19030.php

[hudsonharden]

EXACTLY... Someone is supposed to be, in the United States, INNONCENT until proven guilty...

It is a witch hunt because anyone who is accused is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT

Pursing accusations isn't a witch hunt. They are presumed innocent, but evidance suggests otherwise, so that evidance must be pursued to see if it is credible and to find the truth.

[EvanAparra]

Its the same thing here as it was when it came to the pinetar incident. The Astros and/or Pettitte and Clemens fans are calling it a witch hunt -- like the Tigers fans were calling the pine tar thing a witch hunt. (Although Scott was calling the pinetar incident a witch hunt too, I think he's secretly a witch)

[hellborn]

EXACTLY... Someone is supposed to be, in the United States, INNONCENT until proven guilty...

It is a witch hunt because anyone who is accused is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT
We are not attempting to convict anyone, we are just TALKING about them. I do not have to have proof that Clemens did anything to TALK about him. I did not say that I have proof of anything, I am just observing that I felt that Clemens showed incredibly bizarre behavior during a game of national importance and that behavior might be consistent with using illegal substances that other people in his profession have accused him of taking. If you don't believe in roid rage, go hang around a gym with serious bodybuilders and ask about it...a little personal experience is worth 1000 clinical studies sometimes.

As for the lost decade, I was thinking more that the serious fan will have to discount the performances in that period more than the numbers would be officially wiped out. And, while I support the efforts to rid the game of amphetamines, comparing them to steroid use is like equating smoking a doobie with shooting up horse. Amphetamine does not fundamentally change the nature of a person's body.

[Skin & Bones]

We are not attempting to convict anyone, we are just TALKING about them. I do not have to have proof that Clemens did anything to TALK about him. I did not say that I proof of anything, I am just observing that I felt that Clemens showed incredibly bizarre behavior during a game of national importance and that behavior might be consistent with using illegal substances that other people in his profession have accused him of taking.

As for the lost decade, I was thinking more that the serious fan will have to discount the performances in that period more than the numbers would be officially wiped out. And, while I support the efforts to rid the game of amphetamines, comparing them to steroid use is like equating smoking a doobie with shooting up horse. Amphetamine does not fundamentally change the nature of a person's body.

This doesn't make sense. Increased energy, less fatigued, more amped, etc, doesn't change the nature of one's body ?

Are you saying this because it doesn't specifically help you to build muscle, because that's the only plausible arguement I could see.

[hellborn]

[QUOTE=Skin & Bones]This doesn't make sense. Increased energy, less fatigued, more amped, etc, doesn't change the nature of one's body ?
QUOTE]
Yes, that is not a fundamental change to the body. Having more energy that will disappear if more drug is not taken within a short time is not the same as having 30 more pounds of muscle, shrunken testes, a giant head, etc.

[ESPNFan]

I read that article before, and those " 3 pounds " were never proven to be actual solid muscle.


Uh the article clearly states that the patients gained lean muscle mass. If they have done the studies and relate that information to the press then you can believe that the evidence proving it is in their research.

Here is another one. I posted this here originally back in March.

http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/91C57189E6F71C6C85256752006569B7

CHICAGO, IL -- April 13, 1999 -- Anabolic steroids increase lean body mass and reduce fatigue for dialysis patients who experience malnutrition and an anabolic steroid combined with exercise offers positive results in treatment of HIV-associated weight loss, according to two articles in tomorrow's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Kirsten Johansen, M.D., and colleagues at San Francisco General Hospital studied 29 patients with kidney failure who were undergoing dialysis and showed evidence of malnutrition. Both malnutrition and reduced muscle mass are common in dialysis patients and have been shown to play a role in increased mortality. Patients in the double-blind placebo-controlled study received either the anabolic (protein-building) steroid nandrolone decanoate or a placebo by injection. They were tested for weight, lean body mass (LBM), fatigue, grip strength, walking and stair-climbing times and treadmill performance.

The researchers found that during a six-month treatment period, subjects who received nandrolone gained an average of 5.7 lbs. more LBM than those who received placebo. This gain was accompanied by an increase in serum creatinine levels, suggesting that nandrolone caused increased muscle mass.

The authors also found that subjects who received nandrolone had a significant reduction in their reported symptoms of fatigue and a decrease in the times required for walking and stair-climbing (test-times decreased from 36.5 to 32.7 seconds, while test-times for those in the placebo group increased from 38.7 to 42.1 seconds).

The drug was generally well tolerated, with only a few patients experiencing minor adverse effects.

"Because more than 30 percent of dialysis patients need assistance in performing the normal activities of daily living and because functional limitations are a major determinant of quality of life in dialysis patients, this intervention may have an important impact on the functional capabilities and quality of life of patients undergoing dialysis," the authors write.

Face it your wrong. The patients with Kidney failure were not only not capable of the weight training you claim steroids requier but they were also suffering from malnutrition associated with their condition, which flys in the face your your diet claims as well.

You call out the article I posted as having no "proof" and then you post one where the author doesnt EVEN LIST HIS LAST NAME!?!?!! You have to be kidding me. I really don't know how anyone who isn't desperately trying to will their opinion into fact can first off disagree and second post something as questionable as this in responce.


Also anyone anywhere can post anything on that site.
http://www.19.5degs.com/nf/contribute.php

Hmmm I seem to recall you calling out Sultan for using a similar site.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=527305&highlight=article#post527305 ;)

[Skin & Bones]

[QUOTE=Skin & Bones]This doesn't make sense. Increased energy, less fatigued, more amped, etc, doesn't change the nature of one's body ?
QUOTE]
Yes, that is not a fundamental change to the body. Having more energy that will disappear if more drug is not taken within a short time is not the same as having 30 more pounds of muscle, shrunken testes, a giant head, etc.

From what your saying ( which is an inaccurate, BTW) it sounds that the " change " in the body due to steroid usage sans the " 30 pounds of muscle " is nothing but harmful sideffects. And having more energy is a fundamental effect on the body. You are getting energy you wouldn't normally have without the drug. That right there is altering your body, whether you like to admit it or not. I know when I took a greenie during the second period of a Roller Hockey Game I was particapating in a few months ago, the increased energy and stamina sure made me into a different player. I didn't have to " change it up " as often ( which means switching with a player on the bench), and I was able to get back on defense quicker when I was on offense.

[west coast orange and black]

bkmckenna: I'm at a loss why one would prefer to be left ignorant than to have an investigation.
not to be left in the dark, but to what type of investigation are you referring, bk?

[Skin & Bones]

Uh the article clearly states that the patients gained lean muscle mass. If they have done the studies and relate that information to the press then you can believe that the evidence proving it is in their research.

No, that artical does not specifically state that.

Here is another one. I posted this here originally back in March. http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/91C57189E6F71C6C85256752006569B7



Face it your wrong. The patients with Kidney failure were not only not capable of the weight training you claim steroids requier but they were also suffering from malnutrition associated with their condition, which flys in the face your your diet claims as well.

You call out the article I posted as having no "proof" and then you post one where the author doesnt EVEN LIST HIS LAST NAME!?!?!! You have to be kidding me. I really don't know how anyone who isn't desperately trying to will their opinion into fact can first off disagree and second post something as questionable as this in responce.

Not wrong at at all, that article you just posted I've never read before. I will read it now and determine how credible it is, and whether or not the sample size test is large enough to determine if it is indeed a reliable fact.

Also anyone anywhere can post anything on that site.
http://www.19.5degs.com/nf/contribute.php

Ah, it figures ESPNFan would somehow downplay any site that refutes his claim. I could post others chum, as well as interviews done with professional bodybuilders who have specifically stated everything I have stated. But it's apparently not worth it in this case.

But just for laughs, here's two articles I found in a quick Google scan: Do steroids cause muscle and body growth? There is no evidence that ultra-high doses of steroids alone will cause muscle growth through a chemical effect. In many animal species, high doses of anabolic steroids produce no more muscle growth than the normal dose would.(1,2) However, there is evidence that steroids enhance muscle growth if taken along with rigorous physical training and a high protein diet.(3-5) This exercise program must be in place before and during anabolic steroid administration.(4,6)

http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/howwork.htm

Now don't misunderstand some things here. You won't get huge if you start injecting yourself every day with one of the many "testosterone treatments" or with GH (Growth Hormone). If you don't eat huge quantities of food and train like a real warrior in the gym, nothing good will happen to you, no matter what.

The best thing that steroids can do is help those who use them to recover from their workout much faster than a natural bodybuilder. When natural bodybuilders need at least 48 hours rest before they train again in order to continue increasing their muscle bodymass, steroid users need just a few hours!

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/johndrug.htm

Hmmm I seem to recall you calling out Sultan for using a similar site.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=527305&highlight=article#post527305 ;)

Uh, I was never involved in that thread. Why bring up something entirely irrelevant to this debate ?

[Skin & Bones]

That said, I'm not going to get into the same tired old arguement with " ESPNfan " again. It's boring, and a waste of my time and effort to try and get the facts through people's heads. It also pollutes a thread in which other people are discussing the topic at hand.

[ESPNFan]

Not wrong at at all, that article you just posted I've never read before. I will read it now and determine how credible it is, and whether or not the sample size test is large enough to determine if it is indeed a reliable fact.

Oh please do Professor. I'm sure that the people who wrote the article at Mass General Hospital and Harvard Medical School are awaiting your approval with baited breath :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh


Also anyone anywhere can post anything on that site.
http://www.19.5degs.com/nf/contribute.php

Ah, it figures ESPNFan would somehow downplay any site that refutes his claim. I could post others chum, as well as interviews done with professional bodybuilders who have specifically stated everything I have stated. But it's apparently not worth it in this case.

The site makes no refrence to any of the studies I sited or situations brought up in those studies, nor does it refute them. There is no reseach related to our discussion, no sources, no last name of the author. How you can critizise an article I link and post that in responce with a straight face is midboggling.

Uh, I was never involved in that thread. Why bring up something entirely irrelevant to this debate ?
Oh that isn't you?:eek: Well how ever could I make that mistake :rolleyes:

[ESPNFan]

That said, I'm not going to get into the same tired old arguement with " ESPNfan " again. It's boring, and a waste of my time and effort to try and get the facts through people's heads. It also pollutes a thread in which other people are discussing the topic at hand.

Yeah I would think getting bludgeoned over the head repeatedly with fact after fact would get a little old for you. :D

[Astro]

There is alot of proof that it exsists. Many animal studies have been done that validate its exsistance.
Really? Well hit me with some of that info, because I can give you some where the test was ran on HUMANS and there is little to no-evidence... if a person is naturally violent and they take steroids, of course it would be worse than if they did not... because they are going to be much stronger than they normally would be... if a person is passive, steroids arent going to turn them into a raging psychotic out for blood and death

[PopTop]

The Astros and/or Pettitte and Clemens fans are calling it a witch hunt...Hmm, methinks you must get off contradicting yourself, Evan. When I explained my position on this as having nothing to do with what team I might cheer for, you quickly backtracked and said you were simply inquiring as to whether or not that might be the case. Now, a page or so later, you're back to your general accusation that rationale is indeed the case.

What is it, kid? Do you firmly believe that Astros/Clemens/Pettitte fans are simply calling it a witch hunt because of who it involves, or do you think that it's at least possible some us feel that way about the subject and the subjects in general?

[west coast orange and black]

nomtoc: It wasn't until after [conte] was released that he denied anything and this was to the media, not the courts.

not true.

[west coast orange and black]

PopTop: Nothing like a good witch hunt

i do not think that it is a witchhunt; they're simply following the money.

[Nomtoc]

nomtoc: It wasn't until after [conte] was released that he denied anything and this was to the media, not the courts.

not true.

Yes it is true. I'd post the transcript of where he was pleading the 5th and refusing to cooperate during the hearing but one of your moderator friends will complain again.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes it is true. I'd post the transcript of where he was pleading the 5th and refusing to cooperate during the hearing but one of your moderator friends will complain again.
No, we won't. Just stick to the facts of the actual case and it'll all be good.

[Rookie1914]

I've been saying its one big witch hunt since the beginning... People dont really care about the steroids, as is proof with players such as Mota getting suspended for them and not much is said, they just want to see a big-name player brought down... if this happens the media can sell papers and make money, its all about the $$$

I think those who just want to see a big game are not like us, true baseball fans. i would rather see a no-hitter thrown than 5-10 jacks a game. you can look at these guys and see it's not natural. i sell supplements and my business partner always says [he has over 10 years in the supplement and weight lifting arena] if you are thinking gosh, this guy is huge, is he on roids? the answer is 9 times out of 10, yes. me personally, i am tired of seeing these guys reach out and slap it out with all forearms to the opposite field. something isn't adding up here. so, astros or other teams, i don't think it's a witch hunt. i think it is something that needs to be looked into if evidence is presented and accurate.

[ESPNFan]

No, we won't. Just stick to the facts of the actual case and it'll all be good.

That and when you post your facts, post a link to the source and then just try to quote the portions that make your point. I thought the only reason why the SoxSon had an issue with NomToc's post was the lenght.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That and when you post your facts, post a link to the source and then just try to quote the portions that make your point. I thought the only reason why the SoxSon had an issue with NomToc's post was the lenght.
Indeed it is. We don't need to see everything, just the crux of the situation.

[EvanAparra]

Hmm, methinks you must get off contradicting yourself, Evan. When I explained my position on this as having nothing to do with what team I might cheer for, you quickly backtracked and said you were simply inquiring as to whether or not that might be the case. Now, a page or so later, you're back to your general accusation that rationale is indeed the case.

What is it, kid? Do you firmly believe that Astros/Clemens/Pettitte fans are simply calling it a witch hunt because of who it involves, or do you think that it's at least possible some us feel that way about the subject and the subjects in general?

Watch it with the "kid", PopTop. I'm not contradicting myself at all. I didn't backtrack, because if you go back to my original statement, there is this punctuation that is used to ask a question at the end of it. Therefore, I was "simply inquiring" the whole time.

I pretty much do believe that Astros/Clemens/Pettitte fans are simply calling it a witch hunt because they are bias.(by the way, its not just here on Fever, all of my friends are Astros fans and they're saying the same thing, but when it comes to Bonds? Different story.) Same thing that happened in pine tar incident. You seem to come to the defense to Astros a whole heck of a lot faster than any other players when it comes to this, as I haven't seen you post in any other steroid threads since i've been here, but as soon as there are Astros involved, you are the first to call it a "witch hunt".

[ESPNFan]

Really? Well hit me with some of that info, because I can give you some where the test was ran on HUMANS and there is little to no-evidence... if a person is naturally violent and they take steroids, of course it would be worse than if they did not... because they are going to be much stronger than they normally would be... if a person is passive, steroids arent going to turn them into a raging psychotic out for blood and death

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/3-06/steroids.shtml

Melloni and two of his graduate students discovered that hamsters showing levels of tame play-fighting similar to human teenagers became aggressive when injected with commonly used steroids. The full-blown aggression lasted for long periods during the hamsters' adult life, leaving the team to estimate that teens who use steroids may become adults with behavioral problems. Autopsies performed on the hamsters that went through withdrawal revealed inner changes in their brains that correlated with outward aggressiveness.



Additional findings point to permanent changes in the brain caused by drug use during a specific time in a young person's life. These release of these findings are forthcoming.

"There is a critical developmental period for the brain during teenage life, when drug use can result in permanent damage," says Melloni. "We're finding for instance, that serotonin levels, which play a part in depression, may be altered forever."

So its not just getting bigger that effects the mind with these drugs, as is born out with the reports of withdrawal related depression & suicide.

I'd love to see the studies you have Astro, any new information would be appreciated.

[SoxSon]

Yes it is true. I'd post the transcript of where he was pleading the 5th and refusing to cooperate during the hearing but one of your moderator friends will complain again.


As ESPNFan has said, a link will suffice for something so cumbersome. That was exactly my point.

Also, friends with CCN?! :eek: ;)

[Astro]

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/3-06/steroids.shtml







So its not just getting bigger that effects the mind with these drugs, as is born out with the reports of withdrawal related depression & suicide.

I'd love to see the studies you have Astro, any new information would be appreciated.
You can only include one link? Wow... here is just a sample of some

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12938869&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/1/1
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/10/3754?ijkey=719afd785eeda7585ddc14780b0f47877f722b4 2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8855834&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum

[Edgartohof]

talking about how so-and-so exhibited aggression during a game it must be 'roid rage (which also has very little evidence of exhisting)

Well, if you say there is no such thing as roid rage, then that means you have never seen it take place first hand - others (including myself) have.

Just being on steroids, doesn't lead to roid rages, first off, you have to have something in your personality that can go off. If you are a happy go lucky person all of the time, then you won't (nessecarily) have roid rages, but if you are a surly, angry, aggressive individual, then yes they can (and do) occur.

[Astro]

Well, if you say there is no such thing as roid rage, then that means you have never seen it take place first hand - others (including myself) have.

Just being on steroids, doesn't lead to roid rages, first off, you have to have something in your personality that can go off. If you are a happy go lucky person all of the time, then you won't (nessecarily) have roid rages, but if you are a surly, angry, aggressive individual, then yes they can (and do) occur.
Uhhhh those arent roid rage... if you already get into fights and such before going on steroids, theyre just called being in fights... except now your much stronger because your on steroids...

C'mon now... use your head

[Rapmaster]

Uhhhh those arent roid rage... if you already get into fights and such before going on steroids, theyre just called being in fights... except now your much stronger because your on steroids...

C'mon now... use your head

you could also figure, more strength = more confidence = bigger ego = more chance of defending ego = more fights?

[Astro]

you could also figure, more strength = more confidence = bigger ego = more chance of defending ego = more fights?
Ok, that is also true... but thats not roid rage... roid rage is when someone just snaps for little to no reason and goes around hurting people

[ESPNFan]

You can only include one link? Wow... here is just a sample of some

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12938869&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/1/1
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/10/3754?ijkey=719afd785eeda7585ddc14780b0f47877f722b4 2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8855834&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum

Yeah I'll just stick with one instead of including one that I post twice one that just leads to a login screen for the NJoM and another that includes a line that makes it rather inconclusive:rolleyes:
Changes as measured by various behavioral rating scales were observed across time; however, these changes were not clearly related to periods of reported AAS use. That was from the one that monitored actual people using them at levels of abuse which would have been the most intereting. Good find on the first one, I had it seen that before, but even you have to admit that it doesn't completely disprove that it exsists.

I also found this to be interesting as well.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html

Scientists have attempted to test the association between anabolic steroids and aggression by administering high steroid doses or placebo for days or weeks to human volunteers and then asking the people to report on their behavioral symptoms. To date, four such studies have been conducted. In three, high steroid doses did produce greater feelings of irritability and aggression than did placebo, although the effects appear to be highly variable across individuals. In one study, the drugs did not have that effect. One possible explanation, according to the researchers, is that some but not all anabolic steroids increase irritability and aggression. Recent animal studies show an increase in aggression after steroid administration.

I do agree with you very much that disposition prior to use is a major factor in use related Steroid aggeression.

[ESPNFan]

Ok, that is also true... but thats not roid rage... roid rage is when someone just snaps for little to no reason and goes around hurting people

Astro, your using an exteme case senario to catagorize a condition that may have many different manifestations. An overall increase in aggression that leads to more conflict than what someone would normally experience is the way I look at this side effect.

[west coast orange and black]

nomtoc: It wasn't until after [conte] was released that he denied anything and this was to the media, not the courts.

not true.

nomtoc: Yes it is true. I'd post the transcript of where he was pleading the 5th and refusing to cooperate during the hearing but one of your moderator friends will complain again.

it was before his trial that conte first denied the allegations that he supplied bonds.

[hellborn]

[QUOTE=hellborn]

From what your saying ( which is an inaccurate, BTW) it sounds that the " change " in the body due to steroid usage sans the " 30 pounds of muscle " is nothing but harmful sideffects. And having more energy is a fundamental effect on the body. You are getting energy you wouldn't normally have without the drug. That right there is altering your body, whether you like to admit it or not. I know when I took a greenie during the second period of a Roller Hockey Game I was particapating in a few months ago, the increased energy and stamina sure made me into a different player. I didn't have to " change it up " as often ( which means switching with a player on the bench), and I was able to get back on defense quicker when I was on offense.
Yes, greenies have an "effect" on the body, that is obvious. They will not produce a long lasting "change" in the body in the way that steroids do. Of course, they can be used for weight loss and will mess up your body if you become addicted.
I'm not defending methamphetamines, they need to go, too. Just a big difference in the scale of effect. Players are now using caffeine much more and getting sufficient sleep now that it is more difficult to use greenies. They don't seem to be gaining 40 pounds of flab now that they can't use their diet pills, unlike the guys who suddenly lost gobs of muscle after steroid testing was introduced.
Thanks for letting me know what "change it up" meant. :rolleyes:
Next time you need a boost, try a snickers instead of a greenie.

[Skin & Bones]

[QUOTE=Skin & Bones]
Yes, greenies have an "effect" on the body, that is obvious. They will not produce a long lasting "change" in the body in the way that steroids do. Of course, they can be used for weight loss and will mess up your body if you become addicted.
I'm not defending methamphetamines, they need to go, too. Just a big difference in the scale of effect. Players are now using caffeine much more and getting sufficient sleep now that it is more difficult to use greenies. They don't seem to be gaining 40 pounds of flab now that they can't use their diet pills, unlike the guys who suddenly lost gobs of muscle after steroid testing was introduced.
Thanks for letting me know what "change it up" meant. :rolleyes:
Next time you need a boost, try a snickers instead of a greenie.


No, they won't produce a " long lasting change " in the body, that's why you take them more than once. They are short term performance enhancing drugs that work when you use them.

will mess up your body if you become addicted.

This could be said for any type of drug, or anything for that matter.

I'm not defending methamphetamines, they need to go, too. Just a big difference in the scale of effect. Players are now using caffeine much more and getting sufficient sleep now that it is more difficult to use greenies.

The difference in scale longterm is the big difference, not short term. And actually, one could make a case that it does effect a players ability long term as well. Not being able to feel light on your feet, and energized later on in the season makes a huge difference.

And there's no reason to resort to " caffeine " or " snicker bars ", or whatever other slipshod alternative you believe works. Undetectable Greenies are readily available. And these alternatives may actually hinder performance, and don't work. There's quotes from professional ballplayers saying this, including a Barry Zito from the same article.

Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency says undetectable amphetamines are already available

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/08/25/amph.friday/2.html

Zito...I hear it's not the same. I've never taken a greenie, personally," Zito says. "But I know there are Mexican diet pills, and the way I heard the diet pills affect you, it gets you jittery and amped up and stuff. I've never had that effect with a cup of coffee."

And from Wadler...Wadler warns that players who charge up on coffee and other caffeinated products actually might be accomplishing the opposite of what they're after.

"There's increasing evidence that increased amounts of caffeine actually impair performance," he said.

Here's also a few other things the anti-doping expert had to say about Amphetamines: To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.


"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260756p-223278c.html

Gary Wadler, a board member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a professor of medicine at New York University, has argued that amphetamines may be more performance-enhancing than steroids, and habitual use of amphetamines can result in addiction. They also can lead to diminished appetite and sleeplessness.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/10/02/a_pill_more_bitter_than_steroids/?page=full


If you any want anymore information regarding Amphetamines benefits, just let me now. Now, they aren't steroids, but they do indeed enhance athletic performance.


They don't seem to be gaining 40 pounds of flab now that they can't use their diet pills, unlike the guys who suddenly lost gobs of muscle after steroid testing was introduced.


You do realize that a steroid user can maintain his muscle very easily by just hitting the gym on a regular basis, and eating right ?

If you lose your steroid enhanced muscle, your either an idiot, or just lazy, or both.

Thanks for letting me know what "change it up" meant. :rolleyes:
Next time you need a boost, try a snickers instead of a greenie

If I had the munchies I'd go for a Snicker Bar. But If I want something to increase my energy and better my performance for that game, I'll go with the Greenie.

[ESPNFan]

No, they won't produce a " long lasting change " in the body, that's why you take them more than once. They are short term performance enhancing drugs that work when you use them.

will mess up your body if you become addicted.

This could be said for any type of drug, or anything for that matter.

I'm not defending methamphetamines, they need to go, too. Just a big difference in the scale of effect. Players are now using caffeine much more and getting sufficient sleep now that it is more difficult to use greenies.

The difference in scale longterm is the big difference, not short term. And actually, one could make a case that it does effect a players ability long term as well. Not being able to feel light on your feet, and energized later on in the season makes a huge difference.

And there's no reason to resort to " caffeine " or " snicker bars ", or whatever other slipshod alternative you believe works. Undetectable Greenies are readily available.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/08/25/amph.friday/2.html


They don't seem to be gaining 40 pounds of flab now that they can't use their diet pills, unlike the guys who suddenly lost gobs of muscle after steroid testing was introduced.


You do realize that a steroid user can maintain his muscle very easily by just hitting the gym on a regular basis, and eating right ?

If you lose your steroid enhanced muscle, your either an idiot, or just lazy, or both.

Thanks for letting me know what "change it up" meant. :rolleyes:
Next time you need a boost, try a snickers instead of a greenie

If I had the munchies I'd go for a Snicker Bar. But If I want something to increase my energy and better my performance for that game, I'll go with the Greenie.

Hellborn your wasting your time arguing with this guy. He just wants to make amphetamines out to be the equivilant of Steroids, to exucse any player caught in the current scandel, by implicating decades of others. Forget arguing facts.

If undetectalbe greenines are so "readily available" Why did Buster Olney say the majority of ballplayers had swithced to alternative methods for their pregame pick me up after they discovered that most were just getting a "placebo effect" from amphetamines? The mental euphoric effects of the drugs can very easily

For every guy out there using "undetectable" amphetamines, who effectiveness is in question there are probalby ten others using HGH also undetectable a provan anabolic substance.

Not to mention that amphetamines sideffects can degree your motorskills and because of the effects of amphetamines on your perception a player might not even know it.

And the question still remains if the season wasn't so long and taxing would players even bother with greenies in the first place.

[Skin & Bones]

Hellborn your wasting your time arguing with this guy. He just wants to make amphetamines out to be the equivilant of Steroids, to exucse any player caught in the current scandel, by implicating decades of others. Forget arguing facts.

If undetectalbe greenines are so "readily available" Why did Buster Olney say the majority of ballplayers had swithced to alternative methods for their pregame pick me up after they discovered that most were just getting a "placebo effect" from amphetamines? The mental euphoric effects of the drugs can very easily

For every guy out there using "undetectable" amphetamines, who effectiveness is in question there are probalby ten others using HGH also undetectable a provan anabolic substance.

Not to mention that amphetamines sideffects can degree your motorskills and because of the effects of amphetamines on your perception a player might not even know it.

And the question still remains if the season wasn't so long and taxing would players even bother with greenies in the first place.


Same old ****, different day ESPNFan. If I'm not " worth the effort " you wouldn't bother writing a lengthy post " provan " (LOL) me " wrong ".

Hellborn, if you want real information regarding HGH, read this article here. It's a good start to learning what HGH really does, and not what the media tells you.


But many athletes such as al-Jabbar think of the drugs in distinct ways. One set (steroids) is known to build powerful muscle, while the other (growth hormone) is "more to recover from injury," he said. "I haven't heard of growth hormone giving you strength."

His impression has some support in the scientific community. Most of the research on HGH has been done on the elderly, not elite athletes, but studies have shown that while the drug might grow the size of a muscle, it is not associated with a spike in strength. In a 2004 review of the literature that was published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine and written as a guide for team doctors, the authors concluded that "there is no evidence that growth hormone supplementation will lead to an increase in performance."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2574291

I'm not here with an agenda, I'm here to post the facts. Whether it's about Baseball players, statistics, drugs, cheating, anything, I like to know and present the truth. And everything I have posted here is 100% factual. If I'm presenting an opinion, I would type " IMO ".

[ESPNFan]

Same old ****, different day ESPNFan. If I'm not " worth the effort " you wouldn't bother writing a lengthy post " provan " (LOL) me " wrong ".

Hellborn, if you want real information regarding HGH, read this article here. It's a good start to learning what HGH really does, and not what the media tells you.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2574291

I'm not here with an agenda, I'm here to post the facts. Whether it's about Baseball players, statistics, drugs, cheating, anything, I like to know and present the truth. And everything I have posted here is 100% factual. If I'm presenting an opinion, I would type " IMO ".

Ah making fun of spelling, the last bastion of a desperate man.
If your so egar to present the truth why do you consistantly post links to articles that aren't nearly as credible as ones that disprove what your peddling? You absolutely have an agenda because anyone who is the least bit openminded on these topics would have to take NIH research into consideration, rather than post a article that has no legitimate author or documented research in an attepmt to refute it. Same with trying to discredit the formost scientist on Steroids and Drug abuse in sports, Charles Yesalis by making up a quote about Roberto Clemente. Sure his Mantle comment exsisted but his opinion of Mantle echoed your own and that would sink that bit of character assassination right there. Baseball anaylists like Buster Olney that report facts contratry to your opinions and suddenly it's "who cares about Buster Olney". You post accounts of Paxton Crawford's enhance ment under steroids but consistantly leave out the fact that Crawford blames his injury riddled exit from baseball on steroids. I'd post more but bannings and screen name changes let you deny previous eronious statements. How conveintent.;)

Again your "real" HGH information is only one acount that supports your opinions, and only because you take a quote out of context. You tell us not to listen to what the "Media" tells us HGH? Is'nt ESPN the "Media"? Hello instant contradiction:waving. And pretty funy at the same time. And you Quoted a guy trying to regrow cartilage. What would he know about the other aspects of HGH? Thats your idea of proof? Good to know.

If anyone wants the truth about HGH you could find it.
Here is a study done from the The National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project. Measuring HGH threapy in pateints suffering from HIV wasting.
http://www.natap.org/2002/barcelona/day16.htm
In both HGH groups (those taking HGH daily and on alternating days) lean Body Mass increased and Fat Mass decreased and overall weight increased. Capasity for exsersize incrased in the Every day HGH group. This is despite the fact that a deadly disease was working agisnt them.

And here are two more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8967667&dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSION: Treatment with growth hormone increases body weight, lean body mass, and treadmill work output and appears to be a safe and potentially effective therapy in patients with HIV-associated wasting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8967666&dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: Growth factor therapy had significantly increased lean body mass and decreased fat mass by 6 weeks, but these improvements persisted for 12 weeks only in group 3. Growth factor therapy at the dosages used in this study is not recommended because the magnitude of weight gain was modest and improvements in quality-of-life measures varied.

Not to mention Andre The Giant's body was created by a condition that causes an over production of HGH.

And Let me know if you need more legitimate documented, studies I'll be happy to find them for you ;)

Also of note is the Baseball Prospectus Author Will Carrol has gone on record as stating that players have even moved to IGF1 in their constant seach for Enhancements. Why do I bring this up you may ask? Because IGF1 in the body is stimulated by.... you guessed it HGH. You better go tell those guys that it doesn't do anything. :D

[Skin & Bones]

Ah making fun of spelling, the last bastion of a desperate man.
If your so egar to present the truth why do you consistantly post links to articles that aren't nearly as credible as ones that disprove what your peddling? You absolutely have an agenda because anyone who is the least bit openminded on these topics would have to take NIH research into consideration, rather than post a article that has no legitimate author or documented research in an attepmt to refute it. Same with trying to discredit the formost scientist on Steroids and Drug abuse in sports, Charles Yesalis by making up a quote about Roberto Clemente. Sure his Mantle comment exsisted but his opinion of Mantle echoed your own and that would sink that bit of character assassination right there. Baseball anaylists like Buster Olney that report facts contratry to your opinions and suddenly it's "who cares about Buster Olney". You post accounts of Paxton Crawford's enhance ment under steroids but consistantly leave out the fact that Crawford blames his injury riddled exit from baseball on steroids. I'd post more but bannings and screen name changes let you deny previous eronious statements. How conveintent.;)

Again your "real" HGH information is only one acount that supports your opinions, and only because you take a quote out of context. You tell us not to listen to what the "Media" tells us HGH? Is'nt ESPN the "Media"? Hello instant contradiction:waving. And pretty funy at the same time. And you Quoted a guy trying to regrow cartilage. What would he know about the other aspects of HGH? Thats your idea of proof? Good to know.

If anyone wants the truth about HGH you could find it.
Here is a study done from the The National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project. Measuring HGH threapy in pateints suffering from HIV wasting.
http://www.natap.org/2002/barcelona/day16.htm
In both HGH groups (those taking HGH daily and on alternating days) lean Body Mass increased and Fat Mass decreased and overall weight increased. Capasity for exsersize incrased in the Every day HGH group. This is despite the fact that a deadly disease was working agisnt them.

And here are two more.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8967667&dopt=Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8967666&dopt=Abstract


Not to mention Andre The Giant's body was created by a condition that causes an over production of HGH.

And Let me know if you need more legitimate documented, studies I'll be happy to find them for you ;)

Also of note is the Baseball Prospectus Author Will Carrol has gone on record as stating that players have even moved to IGF1 in their constant seach for Enhancements. Why do I bring this up you may ask? Because IGF1 in the body is stimulated by.... you guessed it HGH. You better go tell those guys that it doesn't do anything. :D

Oh and I purposely didn't spell check so you could at least comment on something.;)

Wow ESPNFan, are you ok now ? Did you get everything off your chest ?

Insults and accusations aside, none of those articles proved to me that HGH increases strength.

Everything I post is indeed factual.

What charles Y said, Amphetamines enhancing performance, steroids benefiting pitchers, etc. I've presented the evidence, and never once have you debunked anything I have said.

Ignoring quotes from hundreds of professional athletes and bodybuilders who know the distinct difference between HGH and steroids, here's a few studies backing up my claims.


HGH doesn't necessarily increase strength, however, and can raise the risk of diabetes and cause swelling, carpal tunnel syndrome and muscle pain. Some researchers fear that HGH could promote tumor growth but no direct causal link to cancer has been established, said Dr. Evan Hadley, director of the Geriatrics and Clinical Gerontology Program at the National Institute on Aging.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9803E4D91E30F932A25757C0A9609C8B63


That increase in muscle doesn't translate into increased strength. Though the study participants gained muscle, they weren't any stronger. One study compared older men who took growth hormone with older men who went through strength training programs. The bottom line: strength training can increase both your muscle mass and your strength, making it cheaper and more effective than taking growth hormone.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030/LOCID=

The researchers concluded that while HGH may help people who lack the hormone, it apparently doesn't change the strength or body composition of highly trained athletes. A study of non-athletes that appeared in the American Journal of Physiology showed similar results. Subjects who took HGH and started lifting weights didn't get any stronger or bigger than those who simply lifted weights.

http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/hgh

And this is just a few of the many articles backing up my claims. If you want quotes from ATHLETES who deal with these drugs daily, just let me know. I'll be happy to post them.

And please show me where I supposedly discredited Dr. Y. I said I disagree with some of his opinions regarding steroids, and that I believe he has an agenda. Never once did I discredit his work. But maybe I did, so please show me where I did.


Bottom Line: HGH is basically embraced by the athletic community as a recovery tool. HGH alone does not increase strength.

[Rapmaster]

soooo.......Clemens and Pettite?

No way those guys will ever get tagged for anything.

I just finished reading "Juiced" by Canseco. Although the book was poorly written and seems to be Jose simply trying to create a positive image of himself and make a quick buck, it does have some worth. What are the odds that baseball is gonna come down hard on a multiple cy young winner, a 300 game winner, the #2 all-time strikeout pitcher, etc... If they bring down Pettite, Clemens name would probably be soiled too after their whole "buddy buddy retire, not retired, I'll come back another year, no I won't, I'll come back in the middle of the season, I only played because Andy's on that team, etc..." situation.

Clemens is a great player but I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), he's a complete disgrace to the game.

[Skin & Bones]

soooo.......Clemens and Pettite?

No way those guys will ever get tagged for anything.

I just finished reading "Juiced" by Canseco. Although the book was poorly written and seems to be Jose simply trying to create a positive image of himself and make a quick buck, it does have some worth. What are the odds that baseball is gonna come down hard on a multiple cy young winner, a 300 game winner, the #2 all-time strikeout pitcher, etc... If they bring down Pettite, Clemens name would probably be soiled too after their whole "buddy buddy retire, not retired, I'll come back another year, no I won't, I'll come back in the middle of the season, I only played because Andy's on that team, etc..." situation.

Clemens is a great player but I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), he's a complete disgrace to the game.

A lot of what Canseco says is false, but regarding Clemenes, he does nothing but speculate on him. Clemens has already admitted to using vioxx, so It wouldn't surprise me if he used other supplements, including illegal ones to aid his career.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/sports/baseball/19roberts.html?ei=5088&en=7c424a5b17a88e31&ex=1266555600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&adxnnlx=1162781352-RzPoyrlEnoQVmVP/zee6cw

That said, I don't have concrete proof, so I won't slum him until I do.

[ESPNFan]

Wow ESPNFan, are you ok now ? Did you get everything off your chest ?

LOL I was going to ask you that same question since you so upset that you resorted to using profanity.


Insults and accusations aside, none of those articles proved to me that HGH increases strength.

Everything I post is indeed factual.

What charles Y said, Amphetamines enhancing performance, steroids benefiting pitchers, etc. I've presented the evidence, and never once have you debunked anything I have said.

Dr. Yesalis said thats he couldn't explain how amphetamines would benefit ballplayers and you set out to smear him. You then said His constant bashing of the modern day athlete is pretty obvious. Your talking about a guy who once said " NO player today could hold someone like Roberto Clemente's jock ".

That Clemete quote, until you produce it, IMO never existed. Therefore everything you post here is not factual.


And this is just a few of the many articles backing up my claims. If you want quotes from ATHLETES who deal with these drugs daily, just let me know. I'll be happy to post them.

Would they be selectively edited as well? Your misleading quoted portion of the Mayo Clinic article shows how hopelessly biased and blatantly deceptive you are.

Here is the exerp form the article unedited
That increase in muscle doesn't translate into increased strength. Though the study participants gained muscle, they weren't any stronger. One study compared older men who took growth hormone with older men who went through strength training programs. The bottom line: strength training can increase both your muscle mass and your strength, making it cheaper and more effective than taking growth hormone.

Now why would you leave out the most important part of that paragraph? Because your trying to blatantly mislead those that read it in a effort to support your argument. So the real results of the tests are old men who took growth hormone gained muscle without weight training While a group that weight trained got stronger. Did you think that we wouldn't read the article and see that you deliberately left out the most important sentence of the paragraph?:noidea :noidea

So you try to mislead people here by fabricating quotes and trying to pass off edited portions of articles. I wonder what else you would resort to in trying to prove your point.

Given this type of childish blatant deception why should anyone here give any of your claims credit. Everything you post here is factual? LOL

I think your missing your calling, you should be making political campaign Ads.

And please show me where I supposedly discredited Dr. Y. I said I disagree with some of his opinions regarding steroids, and that I believe he has an agenda. Never once did I discredit his work. But maybe I did, so please show me where I did.

When you say a person has an agenda what do you think your trying to do?


Bottom Line: HGH is basically embraced by the athletic community as a recovery tool. HGH alone does not increase strength.

The bottom line is actually to find the real truth we have to go through your posts with a fine tooth comb.

[ESPNFan]

A lot of what Canseco says is false, but regarding Clemenes, he does nothing but speculate on him. Clemens has already admitted to using vioxx, so It wouldn't surprise me if he used other supplements, including illegal ones to aid his career.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/sports/baseball/19roberts.html?ei=5088&en=7c424a5b17a88e31&ex=1266555600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&adxnnlx=1162781352-RzPoyrlEnoQVmVP/zee6cw

That said, I don't have concrete proof, so I won't slum him until I do.

Vioxx, the prescription pain reliever withdrawn from the market in September because of a study that showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.

How Rogers use of Vioxx is a red flag for other suppliment use is a stretch.

[Skin & Bones]

LOL I was going to ask you that same question since you so upset that you resorted to using profanity.

Actually, I wasn't upset, just a bit annoyed that you polluted my thread by chiming in a conversation of mine with another poster with your same old crap that we've discussed before.



Dr. Yesalis said thats he couldn't explain how amphetamines would benefit ballplayers and you set out to smear him. You then said

In no way shape or form is that discrediting his work. I just disagreed with his opinion, Just like you disagreed with Arthur De Vany's lengthy paper regarding steroids benefits for homerun hitters. Even though he provided statistical evidence to back up his claims...

That Clemete quote, until you produce it, IMO never existed. Therefore everything you post here is not factual.


Fair enough. I'm googling it at the moment.



Would they be selectively edited as well? Your misleading quoted portion of the Mayo Clinic article shows how hopelessly biased and blatantly deceptive you are.

Nope, I don't edit anything champ.

Here is the exerp form the article unedited


Now why would you leave out the most important part of that paragraph? Because your trying to blatantly mislead those that read it in a effort to support your argument. So the real results of the tests are old men who took growth hormone gained muscle without weight training While a group that weight trained got stronger. Did you think that we wouldn't read the article and see that you deliberately left out the most important sentence of the paragraph?:noidea :noidea

Uh, I don't get what your trying to prove here ?

They did testing on people to see if HGH alone increases strength. It doesn't. This is a fact. Again, do you want me to show you the quotes from many athletes who have said this exact same thing ? Including the one who comes onto this site ?




So you try to mislead people here by fabricating quotes and trying to pass off edited portions of articles. I wonder what else you would resort to in trying to prove your point.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The tidbits I post from the articles I posted are backing up my points. I don't post the whole thing because it takes up too much space. Didn't a mod discuss this problem in this VERY THREAD ?

Yes they did...http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=724322#post724322


Comeon ESPN, use some sense.


The bottom line is actually to find the real truth we have to go through your posts with a fine tooth comb.

The bottom line is you don't like what i have to say because it hurts your arguement. It bothers you so much that you had to chime into hellborn and my debate. The fact of the matter is, nothing I have posted is factually incorrect.

[ESPNFan]

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The tidbits I post from the articles I posted are backing up my points. I don't post the whole thing because it takes up too much space. Did a mod discuss this problem in this VERY THREAD ?

Comeon ESPN, use some sense.


LOL I am using some sense. You would have to not use it to believe this explination.

So your trying to say that you left out that one sentance in the middle of a paragraph you quoted, that actually described the condition of the test because you didn't want you post to be too long?

I'm sure it wasn't because It made all the difference in the world factually:rolleyes:

Sorry but your buddy Jose Canseco is more credible than you after that joke of an excuse. :laugh :laugh

[Skin & Bones]

LOL I am using some sense. You would have to not use it to believe this explination.

So your trying to say that you left out that one sentance in the middle of a paragraph you quoted, that actually described the condition of the test because you didn't want you post to be too long?

I'm sure it wasn't because It made all the difference in the world factually:rolleyes:

Sorry but your buddy Jose Canseco is more credible than you after that joke of an excuse. :laugh :laugh

It wasn't an excuse buddy. I posted the entire article. If I felt the need to " hide it " I wouldn't have posted that specific article. I would of just posted another one of the many articles backing up my claim.

And in all actuality I don't see how that line hurts my point.

[Rapmaster]

ever think that this is a bit off topic? let's leave the biology to the doctors. Besides, if I wanted advice about steroids (doubtful), I'd at least go to a medical professional for my information. Yes athletes are exposed to this type of stuff, but come on, what makes you think that they are completely knowledgeable, 100% correct, and 100% inclined to tell you the truth?

[Skin & Bones]

ever think that this is a bit off topic? let's leave the biology to the doctors. Besides, if I wanted advice about steroids (doubtful), I'd at least go to a medical professional for my information. Yes athletes are exposed to this type of stuff, but come on, what makes you think that they are completely knowledgeable, 100% correct, and 100% inclined to tell you the truth?

Rap, I agree that this got off topic. I wasn't going to get involved in another pointless debate with this guy, but he drove me to it. I'll stop this worthless arguement right now, as it's going nowhere. Be that as it may, I agree that everything an athlete says shouldn't be taken as 100% factual, but it should be considered due to the fact that they deal with these drugs on a regular basis. And your point regarding that is really more directed to clowns like Jose Canseco.

[ESPNFan]

ever think that this is a bit off topic? let's leave the biology to the doctors. Besides, if I wanted advice about steroids (doubtful), I'd at least go to a medical professional for my information. Yes athletes are exposed to this type of stuff, but come on, what makes you think that they are completely knowledgeable, 100% correct, and 100% inclined to tell you the truth?

Considering the thread is about two players having ties to these substances I would say that trying to figure out how those substances would effect them is related. I work in the medical profession, cancer research exactly, I'm not a Dr. however. You would be surprised at the lunchtime conversations between the sportsfans of the group. I'm not trying to say to go to me for advice but I try to present what I feel are the facts about these issues reguardless of who's opinions they support.

And your right about athlete's being 100% anything on the subject, but their opinions are very valueable and shoudl be judged on a case by case basis. As far as truthful goes? Well we know people here on message boards have a problem with that themselves, so I'd figure athletes are no differen't.

[west coast orange and black]

rapmaster: I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), [Clemens is] a complete disgrace to the game.

i understand not knowing what to do with your feelings, rapmaster.
but "a complete disgrace"?

what to do should hundreds of other players who have used be found to have once been dirty?
would they all be a disgrace to you?

"the steroid era" is called that for good reason: hundreds of players.

[Rapmaster]

rapmaster: I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), [Clemens is] a complete disgrace to the game.

i understand not knowing what to do with your feelings, rapmaster.
but "a complete disgrace"?

what to do should hundreds of other players who have used be found to have once been dirty?
would they all be a disgrace to you?

"the steroid era" is called that for good reason: hundreds of players.

Yes, more or less a disgrace. They made for an unfair playing field and could've made a large impact on the financial status of the game (depending on how many "elite" players were actually on the stuff).

But my opinion is that Clemens made a complete mockery of the Yankees and New York. He claims he's retiring, even gets a hummer, all the fanfare (which he deserved for his accomplishments), and then spurns them. Of course, the Yankees didn't file for arbitration or make any move to re-sign them (which they were unconditionally entitled to for the first 30 days of free agency (?? not sure on the exact number). His next move is to sign with Houston. Then he plays the "I'm retiring, wait, not anymore. No, this time is for real. Wait, no I'll sign 1/4 way through the season for a gigantic contract and show up out of shape" game. It'll be nice for the Houston upper management to have their roster set (for the most part) come opening day. They had to reserve money in case he was gonna "unretire". If he decided to stay retired, they could've better spent that money on free agency/trades or whatever.

To me, he seems to put himself above the game. The fact that he only committed to a team after he was sure they were competitive, that's ridiculous. If it turns out he's been using PEDs, that just adds complete insult to injury.

Clemens status among the game's elite could also be jeopardized, maybe even more so than Bonds. If Bonds retired in 1998 (the year he apparently started using), he would still probably be a first ballot guy. Canseco believes that Clemens started juicing after he left Boston (of course, we all know how reputable Canseco is, right?). Cut off his statistics there and he falls just under 2600 strikeouts and under 200 wins, not exactly hall of fame numbers. He was young enough and probably would've gotten at least to the mid to upper 200s in terms of wins, but he pitched himself well up there in the statistics with the second half of his career.

All that being said, innocent until proven otherwise. Clemens is a first ballot guy, for now.

[Skin & Bones]

Yes, more or less a disgrace. They made for an unfair playing field and could've made a large impact on the financial status of the game (depending on how many "elite" players were actually on the stuff).

But my opinion is that Clemens made a complete mockery of the Yankees and New York. He claims he's retiring, even gets a hummer, all the fanfare (which he deserved for his accomplishments), and then spurns them. Of course, the Yankees didn't file for arbitration or make any move to re-sign them (which they were unconditionally entitled to for the first 30 days of free agency (?? not sure on the exact number). His next move is to sign with Houston. Then he plays the "I'm retiring, wait, not anymore. No, this time is for real. Wait, no I'll sign 1/4 way through the season for a gigantic contract and show up out of shape" game. It'll be nice for the Houston upper management to have their roster set (for the most part) come opening day. They had to reserve money in case he was gonna "unretire". If he decided to stay retired, they could've better spent that money on free agency/trades or whatever.

To me, he seems to put himself above the game. The fact that he only committed to a team after he was sure they were competitive, that's ridiculous. If it turns out he's been using PEDs, that just adds complete insult to injury.

Clemens status among the game's elite could also be jeopardized, maybe even more so than Bonds. If Bonds retired in 1998 (the year he apparently started using), he would still probably be a first ballot guy. Canseco believes that Clemens started juicing after he left Boston (of course, we all know how reputable Canseco is, right?). Cut off his statistics there and he falls just under 2600 strikeouts and under 200 wins, not exactly hall of fame numbers. He was young enough and probably would've gotten at least to the mid to upper 200s in terms of wins, but he pitched himself well up there in the statistics with the second half of his career.

All that being said, innocent until proven otherwise. Clemens is a first ballot guy, for now.

Rap, Bonds is actually alleged to have started using steroids in 1999. And statistically, IMO, didn't benefit from them until 2001. He wasn't a better player in 99 and 00 than he was before.

And Clemens wasn't a HOF pre 1997 ?

I could list a bunch of stats proving that he was. But the voters would just let him in the on sole fact that he already won 3 cyyoungs and an MVP award prior to 1997. So even if it's proven that he used steroids, there's no doubt that he's a great pitcher and a first ballot Hofer.

[Rapmaster]

Rap, Bonds is actually alleged to have started using steroids in 1999. And statistically, IMO, didn't benefit from them until 2001. He wasn't a better player in 99 and 00 than he was before.

And Clemens wasn't a HOF pre 1997 ?

I could list a bunch of stats proving that he was. But the voters would just let him in the on sole fact that he already won 3 cyyoungs and an MVP award prior to 1997. So even if it's proven that he used steroids, there's no doubt that he's a great pitcher and a first ballot Hofer.

True on the awards, but everyone knows the statistical bias on HOF votes. The stigma of 300 wins, 3000 hits, and 500 homeruns. We can definitely say (now that he's accomplished the 300) that he's a first ballot guy. But with less than 200, you can't definitively say that. There's bound to be some sect preaching "longevity" and "long-term dominance" to add doubt.

There was a debate on Pedro a couple years back about how if he retired then, would he make it? It was actually quite interesting

[Skin & Bones]

True on the awards, but everyone knows the statistical bias on HOF votes. The stigma of 300 wins, 3000 hits, and 500 homeruns. We can definitely say (now that he's accomplished the 300) that he's a first ballot guy. But with less than 200, you can't definitively say that. There's bound to be some sect preaching "longevity" and "long-term dominance" to add doubt.

There was a debate on Pedro a couple years back about how if he retired then, would he make it? It was actually quite interesting

Rap, I agree. I thought you were trying to say that Clemens wasn't HOF material prior to the 1997. Assuming he retired then, he probably wouldn't get in on the first ballot, as with Bonds if he retired in 1999. But both of them were very much deserving of the HOF prior to allegations of steroid use.

[ESPNFan]

rapmaster: I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), [Clemens is] a complete disgrace to the game.

i understand not knowing what to do with your feelings, rapmaster.
but "a complete disgrace"?

what to do should hundreds of other players who have used be found to have once been dirty?
would they all be a disgrace to you?

"the steroid era" is called that for good reason: hundreds of players.

Exactly, its basicly what this period of baseball will be judged by on both sides of the ball from now on. Its not an exaggeration either. Hundreds of players were using. The 5-7% that failed a test that was so simple to circumvent some refered to it as an IQ test is evident of that. And that number that failed was at least a minimum of 5% but could have been much more than 7%, but baseball was not required to release those exact figures.

As for individual players go, my opinion vasilates on them peridoicaly. But given the league's wink wink pretend to look the other way attitude on PEDs you have to expect some to take full advantage of it. Once a number of players start to do it and there are no rammifications, only bigger contracts, you can be sure many others will succumb to the temptation. And then others simply felt they had to use to keep up or stay in the league. The disgrace isn' that players used these substances. The disgrace is that clean players had to compete on a very uneven playing feild and that even though they were clean their whole career everyone in this era will be painted with the same suspicion filled brush. Well except for Tim Wakefield :laugh

I don't look at guys like Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro etc... (and if allagations are true Clemens) individually as disgraces. It's just unfortunate that they could not have resisted temptation and now their on and off feild reputations and legacy will suffer for it.

[mwiggins]

Rap, I agree. I thought you were trying to say that Clemens wasn't HOF material prior to the 1997. Assuming he retired then, he probably wouldn't get in on the first ballot, as with Bonds if he retired in 1999. But both of them were very much deserving of the HOF prior to allegations of steroid use.

The only reason Bond's wouldn't be a first ballot HoF if he retired in 1999 is bias against him from writers that didn't like him. At that point he had a much better case for the Hall that any of the recent first ballot guys - or soon to be first ballot guys. (Yount, Brett, Ripken, Gwynn, Ryan, Molitor, Eck).

[PopTop]

Watch it with the "kid", PopTop. I'm not contradicting myself at all. I didn't backtrack, because if you go back to my original statement, there is this punctuation that is used to ask a question at the end of it. Therefore, I was "simply inquiring" the whole time.

I pretty much do believe that Astros/Clemens/Pettitte fans are simply calling it a witch hunt because they are bias.(by the way, its not just here on Fever, all of my friends are Astros fans and they're saying the same thing, but when it comes to Bonds? Different story.) Same thing that happened in pine tar incident. You seem to come to the defense to Astros a whole heck of a lot faster than any other players when it comes to this, as I haven't seen you post in any other steroid threads since i've been here, but as soon as there are Astros involved, you are the first to call it a "witch hunt".First off, anyone younger than about 30 gets the 'kid' tag with me. If you take offense to that, then so be it. But I'm not changing my ways just to soothe your fragile psyche.

Secondly, as I stated earlier, I haven't come to the defense of any steroid user. And I'm not defending Clemens or Pettitte if they did indeed use them. All I've said is that falling to the temptation to use any of these supplements has never been the bigger crime in any of this as far as I'm concerned. And just because you haven't seen me say that over and over, that doesn't mean I haven't posted such info. It's called researching before speaking/writing, don't they teach that in journalism these days?

[EvanAparra]

First off, anyone younger than about 30 gets the 'kid' tag with me. If you take offense to that, then so be it. But I'm not changing my ways just to soothe your fragile psyche.

Secondly, as I stated earlier, I haven't come to the defense of any steroid user. And I'm not defending Clemens or Pettitte if they did indeed use them. All I've said is that falling to the temptation to use any of these supplements has never been the bigger crime in any of this. And just because you haven't seen me say that over and over, that doesn't mean I haven't posted such info. It's called researching before speaking/writing, don't they teach that in journalism these days?

I don't take offense to it, just think it's stupid. Just like me saying, "What is it, old man?".

Yeah, if I was writing an article about it, i'd research it.. This is a conversation, and if you have time to research everything you say in a conversation, then you have a lot of time on your hands. How about talking about the subject at hand instead of getting into insults, as thats what you seem to do when someone disagrees with you.

[EvanAparra]

rapmaster: I think if a connection is made to him and steroids (not speculative, hard evidence), [Clemens is] a complete disgrace to the game.

i understand not knowing what to do with your feelings, rapmaster.
but "a complete disgrace"?

what to do should hundreds of other players who have used be found to have once been dirty?
would they all be a disgrace to you?

"the steroid era" is called that for good reason: hundreds of players.

Agreed. Thats like saying this whole era is a complete disgrace, and while some may agree with that, I dont. Other eras in baseball had widespread cheating, but no one calls those times disgraceful.

[Rapmaster]

Agreed. Thats like saying this whole era is a complete disgrace, and while some may agree with that, I dont. Other eras in baseball had widespread cheating, but no one calls those times disgraceful.

It's not really the cheating that's the primary issue. It's the finger pointing, the committees, the books, the lying, etc... I don't recall Perry ever being sub-peonaed to the Supreme Court.

Cheating is a fact of life, baseball is no exception. It's really what you do after you get caught that defines who you are. I think Guillermo Mota handled his situation gracefully. I didn't see him issue a statement that needed names to be crossed out, statements about tejada injecting him with B-12, etc...

[ESPNFan]

Agreed. Thats like saying this whole era is a complete disgrace, and while some may agree with that, I dont. Other eras in baseball had widespread cheating, but no one calls those times disgraceful.

Were those forms of Cheating related to federal crimes? None of those other forms of cheating had the long term health ramifications either, with the exception of Amphetamines, which wasn't technically cheating for years. And most other forms of cheating could be uncovered on the Field. If Kenny Rogers was using HGH or Steroids would Fox Camera's have caught him? And were monumental records being broken by players who were most likely cheating to do just that?

But the worst part that makes this era disgraceful to some is the complicit nature of The Commissioner, the Owners and the Players union who just wanted to count the dingers, the gate, and the money. When grandstanding congressmen make the Commissioner of baseball look, clueless, incompetent and asleep at the wheel is getting into that area where disgraceful becomes an entirely appropriate description

[PopTop]

I don't take offense to it, just think it's stupid. Just like me saying, "What is it, old man?".

Yeah, if I was writing an article about it, i'd research it.. This is a conversation, and if you have time to research everything you say in a conversation, then you have a lot of time on your hands. How about talking about the subject at hand instead of getting into insults, as thats what you seem to do when someone disagrees with you.Call me what you want. I'm not bothered or as sensitive to that as you obviously are.

People disagree with me all the time and it doesn't bother me. But you went a step further and decided to put your own words in my mouth. When people start putting words in my mouth, as you did, I'll respond however I please, including throwing out insults, since I find that act very insulting and irritating. You said you hadn't seen me post anything to 'defend' others accused of steroid use, yet I also haven't seen any evidence on your part that I ever posted anything jumping on Bonds et al when they've stood accused.

I have the same amount of time on my hands as you, 24 hours per day. And while I might not always be able to pull out a book to research something before I have a conversation with someone, I still research in my own mind whether or not what I'm about to say is the right thing, or even valid. Just speaking willy-nilly to hear myself talk ain't my bag. But hey, if that blows your skirt up, then more power to you.

If you want to hide behind the "question mark" in your first post regarding my views, then so be it. But you know as well as everyone else that your mind was already made up about why you assume I was making some rush into the thread to 'defend' Clemens and Pettitte. And whether you're writing an article or just participating in conversation, forming a hardened bias BEFORE you research or stop and think about your words is a very dangerous modus operandi.

Oh, and here's another writing tip for you: Quotation marks go outside the punctuation.

[FatAngel]

Rap, Bonds is actually alleged to have started using steroids in 1999. And statistically, IMO, didn't benefit from them until 2001. He wasn't a better player in 99 and 00 than he was before.


If you look at isolated power (SLG minus BA), it is pretty obvious that Bonds took his game to another level in 1999. The sudden jump he made is even unlikely for a player in his prime, much less for a 35 year-old who is expected to decline.
It took until 2001 before his cumulative stats went through the roof, but I think it is fair to interpret the complete absence of decline alone that steroids helped him prior to 2001.

[EvanAparra]

Call me what you want. I'm not bothered or as sensitive to that as you obviously are.

Like I said, it's just stupid.

Oh, and here's another writing tip for you: Quotation marks go outside the punctuation.

Outside the punctuation, eh?

I'm not going to continue this arguement anymore, it'e become stupid.. Although I should have figured, most arguements I've seen that include you end up this way. (nothing to do with what the topic is and everything to do with insulting the other person) Dumb discussion over.


[/QUOTE]

[west coast orange and black]

rapmaster: Yes, more or less a disgrace ... he seems to put himself above the game.

ok, i hear what yer sayin'. thanx for your time to explain.

[west coast orange and black]

ESPNFan: ...much more than 7%, but baseball was not required to release those exact figures.
upwards of 17%, i believe.

[ESPNFan]

ESPNFan: ...much more than 7%, but baseball was not required to release those exact figures.
upwards of 17%, i believe.

And thats just % of the ones who managed to find a way to fail it!!!!! :ughh

[Skin & Bones]

If you look at isolated power (SLG minus BA), it is pretty obvious that Bonds took his game to another level in 1999. The sudden jump he made is even unlikely for a player in his prime, much less for a 35 year-old who is expected to decline.
It took until 2001 before his cumulative stats went through the roof, but I think it is fair to interpret the complete absence of decline alone that steroids helped him prior to 2001.

No, it took until 2001 for Bonds to become a better player than he was previously. Yes, his power did go up a noticeable amount in 1999 and 2000, that's about it.

Going by a simple metric like WinShares, Bonds earned 34 in his last alleged pre steroid season. In 99 he earned 19 ( and according to Game of Shadows, steroids caused him an injury that year). In 2000 he earned 32, his worst total when healthy since 1994. And 1994 was a strike year.

Heck, even if you to look solely at offense, Batting Winshares sees Barry's 2000 at 30.0, the lowest total since 1994, again, the strike year.

So in all actuality Bonds wasn't on the decline before 1999, and actually one could make an arguement that atleast in 1999 steroids may have actually hindered his performance overall, causing him an injury he otherwise wouldn't have had.