Steroid List Leaks David Ortiz+a.soriano+c.delgado Tested Positive

[baseballfans]

Full List named Here

If this list has validity, the RedSox essentially juiced their way to a title.

What would surprise me is that Todd Helton is the only Rockies on this list

No Smoltz, Maddux or Glavine. No positive for 500 HR Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, & Albert Pujols (on pace 500 + HR).

[Keith5920]

it says "Rumored steroid list (UNCONFIRMED)"...so yeah.

[patsen]

They've done this before. They just make up a list of players they don't like, players who 'don't like baseball', or whatever other intangibles they look at, or people who've had massive spikes or slumps, whether they be random noise or whatnot.

I don't see why it should be an issue anymore of who took them. Once this witchhunt ends, things will be a lot better.

Also, why would Rockies be more prone to steroids? Their high offensive numbers are because of the park effect.

[bhutsell]

Not a chance. Way too many big names, not enough no names...

[stamcoff1979]

I dont doubt that at least half that list is correct but unless its official i just cant believe it. Now if Canseco released the list then id believe it lol. Cant argue with the man who hasn't been wrong yet.

[patsen]

Canseco hasn't been proven wrong, there's a difference. There is no way to prove a player didn't do steroids, which is why accusing is basically a life sentence.

[Hoop27]

Canseco hasn't been proven wrong, there's a difference. There is no way to prove a player didn't do steroids, which is why accusing is basically a life sentence.

No positive test. not guilty. end of story.

[patsen]

False positives mean that isn't a sure thing either. That's why the original rules let someone fail one test, because he could get unlucky. Now, testing is Russian roulette, whether people used or not.

[Hoop27]

False positives mean that isn't a sure thing either. That's why the original rules let someone fail one test, because he could get unlucky. Now, testing is Russian roulette, whether people used or not.

stick to an "A" and "B" sample. if the A tests positive test the B.

[Davidc]

JOSE LIMA????!!!!!

He must've been doing them wrong....

[GoRedSox34]

I got a pretty good laugh out of this 'list'.

[philthepat]

Its almost a whos who of baseball in 2003.

Not nearly enough 'small time' names on there. So yeah..

[Sean O]

If this list has validity, the RedSox essentially juiced their way to a title.

Kid, you've been posting BS on here with every single mis-typed post you've ever made, and this is one of the dumbest things you've ever said. This is an idiotic list, though who would expect anything less than the great source that is rotoinfo.com.

[baseballfans]

If the list is real, it's a relief that Pujols and Griffey Jr are not on it.

At least there's a few great players who can be respected for not cheating.

[CircleChange11]

stick to an "A" and "B" sample. if the A tests positive test the B.

Just like cycling ... now there's a sport without PED controversies. *big grin*

[patsen]

If the list is real, it's a relief that Pujols and Griffey Jr are not on it.

At least there's a few great players who can be respected for not cheating.

Or rather accused of cheating. Though Pujols gets a lot of accusations. And I don't know why Griffey doesn't get more.

[CircleChange11]

Though Pujols gets a lot of accusations.

Not by those than analyze numbers. He's as consistent as San Diego weather.

And I don't know why Griffey doesn't get more.

Because his career has followed "normal" progression/regression. He hasn't exploded with his best seasons at an advanced age. He didn't instaneously arrive as a great power hitter. His best seasons are in his prime years (27-30). His career has a very normal progression to it. Not surprisingly, his best HR years are also the years in which he has had the most At Bats.

[CircleChange11]

No positive test. not guilty. end of story.

... except for the years when there was not any testing.

I cannot be unconvinced that Brady Anderson was not using PEDs during his 50 HR season.

Never hit more than 21 HRs, then BOOM ... 50 ... in 1995 no less, the reputed "era" when it was "rampant". Luis Gonzales is another "nice guy" that is under suspicion ... for good reasons ... 57 of em.

The frequent use of masking agents make test results even that more difficult to accept, while trying to wary of engaging in a mobfest or witch hunt.

If there's one thing we know of steroids and testing, it's that the cheaters are always a coupla steps ahead of the testing. Canseco never tested positive for steroids. The only reason why we know about it is because he's an arrogant ***** that needed money, and sought revenge on MLB for being "black-balled" out of the league (his opinion). Had Canseco been somewhat humble and content with his standing in baseball history, we might not know anything from that era in regards to the use of PEDs. Once he came out, so did Caminiti, then Giambi.

The thing about Canseco, is that most often, he is not just suggesting that a certain player used steroids, he is claiming that he, in fact, taught the player how to use them and/or injected them personally. You hear a lot of silence from the guys he named and described personal interactions with.

My favorite part of the book "Juiced" is when a buddy I was coaching with loaned it to me on a road trip and felt the need to explain "It's an eas read." ... no kidding?!!?!!? A book written by Jose Canseco is an easy read? ... and here I was expecting a bunch of big words and long paragraphs. *grin*

[patsen]

The problem with these arguments is that it's all heresy. And we know for a fact that the media prefers ratings over facts, so I don't deem them as reliable sources.

However, they have managed to convince a generation of fans what a steroid player is, whether or not those are actually accurate. Like I said above: "players they don't like, players who 'don't like baseball', or whatever other intangibles they look at, or people who've had massive spikes or slumps, whether they be random noise or whatnot."

So, by your logic, Chipper Jones is clearly using steroids because he had a late career surge. We can look for differences in stats on anyone and blame it on steroids. Magglio Ordonez winning a batting title after a few years of being average? Steroids! Jermaine Dye's return and All Star '06 season after almost ending his career? Sttteeerrrroids!

You see the picture. There's no way to prove or disprove anyone. So it's a moot point.

[DylanBradbury]

The problem with these arguments is that it's all heresy. And we know for a fact that the media prefers ratings over facts, so I don't deem them as reliable sources.

However, they have managed to convince a generation of fans what a steroid player is, whether or not those are actually accurate. Like I said above: "players they don't like, players who 'don't like baseball', or whatever other intangibles they look at, or people who've had massive spikes or slumps, whether they be random noise or whatnot."

So, by your logic, Chipper Jones is clearly using steroids because he had a late career surge. We can look for differences in stats on anyone and blame it on steroids. Magglio Ordonez winning a batting title after a few years of being average? Steroids! Jermaine Dye's return and All Star '06 season after almost ending his career? Sttteeerrrroids!

You see the picture. There's no way to prove or disprove anyone. So it's a moot point.

Statistical anomalies are one thing (Chipper's ability to hit for a high average), obvious surges in power due to PEDs another (Luis Gonzalez and his 57 HRs).

What I'd love to see is an assurance that someone didn't use PEDs. For example if Carlos Delgado said "If someone can prove I used PEDs, than I will donate $10M to ____ charity." Something along those lines.

[patsen]

Except people cherry pick numbers to support their claims. Adam Dunn, statistically, is one of the most consistent players in the game. He has literally hit exactly 40 HR the last four years. Does that mean that he's not a steroid user?

Or will people say he's a power hitter who "doesn't like baseball", and try to cherry pick some numbers to try to support his claim that he is a steroid user?

As for charity, I still love Tango's idea of an escrow account: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/...escrow_account/

Basically, the league holds on to 50% of his salary, and if he gets through the season clean, he gets it back. If he doesn't, the money gets distributed among the clean players. Gives disincentive to use, and incentive to not use.

[CircleChange11]

The problem with these arguments is that it's all heresy.

Not really. We have MVPs that have admitted use, named others that were using. We have power seasons by which we have never seen before. It's not just heresay. Some of us have been in sports a long time, we've had friends use PEDs at a high level, we've competed against suspected and/or admitted PED users. We know what enhanced performance looks like, we can see where players have doubled and tripled their home run output, whilke adding a lot of muscle mass in a very short period of time, and those of us that have spent some time under the iron, have a pretty fair sense of what is and is not possible without PEDs.

I don't support this idea of "oh well, we never can tell" or "we'll never know", because many of us have a lot of experience, skillled observation, and can recognize some obvious markers.

As for the media ... I don't give two poops about those jock sniffers. The fact that you keep referring to them instead of using your own observations, experiences, and statements of athletes indicates to me that you don't feel that you can be your own guide in the situation.

And we know for a fact that the media prefers ratings over facts, so I don't deem them as reliable sources.

Most of us didn't need the media to to tell us that Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Juan Gonzales, Brett Boone, etc were "on something".

I admit Caminiti surprised me, but I can understand how after numerous injury-plagued seasons he was looking for some recovery help. A-Rod was somewhat suprising as well, but not completely shocking.

However, they have managed to convince a generation of fans what a steroid player is, whether or not those are actually accurate. Like I said above: "players they don't like, players who 'don't like baseball', or whatever other intangibles they look at, or people who've had massive spikes or slumps, whether they be random noise or whatnot."

You need to stop blaming the whole steroid thing on the media. That's weak sauce. I dislike the media likely more than most others, but putting it on the media is lame. Players were using PEDs, undetected, for quite a few years. Like I said, had Canseco not admitted his use and told of how he taught others in Oakland and Texas to do the same, we might not ever know ... although Sosa's three 60 HR seasons, Big Mac's 70, and Bonds's 73, make it almost impossible not to think "something is going on". Again, stop with the media. It's turning out that lots of guys used steroids ... even "nice guys". *Gasp*

So, by your logic, Chipper Jones is clearly using steroids because he had a late career surge.

Did his power output double?

Don't show me an apple when I'm talking about oranges.

We can look for differences in stats on anyone and blame it on steroids. Magglio Ordonez winning a batting title after a few years of being average? Steroids! Jermaine Dye's return and All Star '06 season after almost ending his career? Sttteeerrrroids!

You're out of control. You're barely on topic. Look at the examples you are bringing up and the one's I am talking about.

But, to give an example of a season that would be suspicious would be Ryan Ludwick of my Cardinals. Major power breakthrough year (2008) after years in the minors, followed by a major drop-off (2009). I'm not saying Ludwick used steroids, but I am saying an eyebrow is raised.

You see the picture. There's no way to prove or disprove anyone. So it's a moot point.

Technically, proofs only exist in mathematics ... but you seem to think one cannot compile and examine evidence regarding a performance situation. I think the exact opposite. Different situations will have different amounts of evidence.

I'm also not dependent on the media to make conclusions for me.

[shark0path]

The problem with these arguments is that it's all heresy. And we know for a fact that the media prefers ratings over facts, so I don't deem them as reliable sources.

However, they have managed to convince a generation of fans what a steroid player is, whether or not those are actually accurate. Like I said above: "players they don't like, players who 'don't like baseball', or whatever other intangibles they look at, or people who've had massive spikes or slumps, whether they be random noise or whatnot."

So, by your logic, Chipper Jones is clearly using steroids because he had a late career surge. We can look for differences in stats on anyone and blame it on steroids. Magglio Ordonez winning a batting title after a few years of being average? Steroids! Jermaine Dye's return and All Star '06 season after almost ending his career? Sttteeerrrroids!

You see the picture. There's no way to prove or disprove anyone. So it's a moot point.

There is also a difference to how you want to perceive it. Its not a moot point. Reasonable arguments are more often than not, true. For instance, switch-hitters hitting for better numbers, like Chipper Jones and Jorge Posada, makes sense as they get better hitting from their weaker side, their overall average will noticeably go up. Guys like Magglio Ordonez and Jermaine Dye's success can be directly attributed to injury plagued years, and subsequent healthy years after them. One might not be able to prove/disprove 100%, but you can make a reasonable decision based upon statistical and logical observation.

[patsen]

Well, if we're getting into a serious discussion, let's at least get some nomenclature straight. I've been using 'steroids' as a blanket term, because that was what the topic name was about. Seems we're talking about MLB-banned PEDs. I'm saying MLB-banned, because technically speaking, everything can be defined as a performance enhancing drug of some sort.

Not really. We have MVPs that have admitted use, named others that were using. We have power seasons by which we have never seen before. It's not just heresay. Some of us have been in sports a long time, we've had friends use PEDs at a high level, we've competed against suspected and/or admitted PED users. We know what enhanced performance looks like, we can see where players have doubled and tripled their home run output, whilke adding a lot of muscle mass in a very short period of time, and those of us that have spent some time under the iron, have a pretty fair sense of what is and is not possible without PEDs.

I don't support this idea of "oh well, we never can tell" or "we'll never know", because many of us have a lot of experience, skillled observation, and can recognize some obvious markers.

There's a difference between taking Winstrol and taking allergy medicine. I doubt outright anabolic steroids are the 'issue'. We know the effect of anabolic steroids on players, and I doubt players are taking such obvious effects. If they are taking PEDs, they're taking them to get more subtle effects, and this is where we lose the effect. These are some of the world's best athletes, and gaining muscle mass is natural. For every player who bulked up 15 lb by illegitimate means, there may be five who did it naturally. The most obvious bodybuilders can probably be identified by sight, but I doubt this is true for baseball players.

There have also been studies on the effect on statistics, and they've all turned out inconclusive. If PEDs improve the performance of some players, they lower the performance of others, making it nigh impossible to use stats to determine use. Power numbers wax and wane with the scoring environment. A lot of people mark 1993 as the start of steroids, perhaps because of the boost of power. Keep in mind that's also the year Mile High Stadium in Denver opened.

As for the media ... I don't give two poops about those jock sniffers. The fact that you keep referring to them instead of using your own observations, experiences, and statements of athletes indicates to me that you don't feel that you can be your own guide in the situation.

Well, I must admit, I don't live near baseball stadiums, or see professional athletes or bodybuilders very often. I have gone to a dozen games, and notice that most baseball players are bigger than I am. (Except for David Eckstein, but that was too funny.) I wouldn't be able to identify a steroid user by sight unless he looked like Vince McMahon.

My two sources for information are the mainstream media, who make claims with little to no facts, and sources such as Baseball Prospectus, or other sabermetric information sights, which make claims with evidence and facts. Needless to say, they generally say different things, but I trust one set more than the other. I speak ill of the media because they present the weaker, but most heard side of the story, which I find is misleading to people.

Most of us didn't need the media to to tell us that Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Juan Gonzales, Brett Boone, etc were "on something".

I admit Caminiti surprised me, but I can understand how after numerous injury-plagued seasons he was looking for some recovery help. A-Rod was somewhat suprising as well, but not completely shocking.

McGwire admitted to using androstenedione, which is a hormone which was not banned at the time he was playing. He retired before testing and other things. What he and others did was unethical, but not against the rules of baseball. I'm all for setting new rules for things, but punishing people retroactively is crossing the line.

And what was the evidence? Fast muscle growth? Total muscle mass? HR totals? Gonzalez and Boone are not obvious to me for instance.

You need to stop blaming the whole steroid thing on the media. That's weak sauce. I dislike the media likely more than most others, but putting it on the media is lame. Players were using PEDs, undetected, for quite a few years. Like I said, had Canseco not admitted his use and told of how he taught others in Oakland and Texas to do the same, we might not ever know ... although Sosa's three 60 HR seasons, Big Mac's 70, and Bonds's 73, make it almost impossible not to think "something is going on". Again, stop with the media. It's turning out that lots of guys used steroids ... even "nice guys". *Gasp*

I don't intent to blame the entire deal on the media. It is the fault of the MLBPA for allowing its union to use PEDs without consequence, setting up a bad game. I also blame the MLB owners and the commissioner's office for welcoming PEDs into the game in hopes to boost player ability, and therefore competition. I only blame the media for not letting this thing die. But, everyone's out for more money. Owners like their monopoly as it is, players must compete to make it to free agency and get the big bucks, and the media must print some story to sell papers in the hypercompetitive market they're in.

Did his power output double?

Don't show me an apple when I'm talking about oranges.

So only power is affected by steroids? I'm just trying to extend the logic I've heard in this thread.

You're out of control. You're barely on topic. Look at the examples you are bringing up and the one's I am talking about.

But, to give an example of a season that would be suspicious would be Ryan Ludwick of my Cardinals. Major power breakthrough year (2008) after years in the minors, followed by a major drop-off (2009). I'm not saying Ludwick used steroids, but I am saying an eyebrow is raised.

Simply showing some examples of other people who surges and drop-offs, and asking if they should be accused as well.

The problem with looking at stats is that there isn't enough to prove sudden changes in talent... because a season is only 162 games, you get at best 700 PA of samples. But, a given player could hit .280 in one sample, and .340 if they were to repeat the season. (Skip the next paragraph if you don't care about math.)

Just to give an idea, let's propose a player whose true talent is hitting 24 HR in 600 AB. If he plays a 600 AB season, we should expect him to hit 24 HR (0.04 HR/AB), but his actual amount probably won't be 24. By raw statistical variance, he has a 16% chance of hitting over 29. He has a 2.2% chance of hitting over 34, and a 0.1% chance of hitting over 38. Given how many players get full seasons, we should expect at least one to hit 15 HR over his norm every other season. And one to hit 15 HR under. And that's assuming all players are robots.

It's entirely possible for players to have a single fluke season and get right back where he usually is. If someone's using PEDs, why would it be a massive spike one season, then return right back where he was? Statistically, it's more likely it's a fluke season. They happen.

Technically, proofs only exist in mathematics ... but you seem to think one cannot compile and examine evidence regarding a performance situation. I think the exact opposite. Different situations will have different amounts of evidence.

I'm also not dependent on the media to make conclusions for me.

It's difficult to make such a claim, because almost everything you hear of the sport comes of the media, so it's difficult to remove that bias. Just like CNN and FOX on politics. One has left wing bias, the other has right wing bias. If you only heard one story, you wouldn't be able to make conclusions for yourself. Problem with sports, the media's pretty much all biased the same way, and the only way to get the real story is to get in the pressbox, or the clubhouse. Something very few of us have.

I simply don't think steroids should be debated in the court of public opinion, especially if that public is biased by the media.

There is also a difference to how you want to perceive it. Its not a moot point. Reasonable arguments are more often than not, true. For instance, switch-hitters hitting for better numbers, like Chipper Jones and Jorge Posada, makes sense as they get better hitting from their weaker side, their overall average will noticeably go up. Guys like Magglio Ordonez and Jermaine Dye's success can be directly attributed to injury plagued years, and subsequent healthy years after them. One might not be able to prove/disprove 100%, but you can make a reasonable decision based upon statistical and logical observation.

Chipper was always a switch hitter. He didn't become more switch later in his career.

If steroids/PEDs have a direct effect on baseball, it would be of healing recovery times, so coming back from injury faster can be assisted by PEDs. But, I was mostly trying to see what people think the effect is. I don't see how Pujols is safe, but Ortiz is not. Especially given Ortiz's problems can be linked to health as well.

I'm starting to think batting average is the anti-accuser, since Chipper's improved hitting increased his Avg/OBP but not Iso. But, if that were the case, Dunn would be accused as well. Batting average is also a measure of intangibles, since putting contact on the ball is 'good baseball'. People seem to prefer a .300/.400/.500 hitter over a .200/.400/.500 hitter for instance, since the former at least looks proactive at hitting the ball, as the other gets his value in BB and HR.

[Hoop27]

The only other thing that can be attributed to the increase in power is the off season work out regiments. Now Steroids and performance enhancers are obviously a problem, but guys are just in better shape than they were 20 years ago, and that's the same in all sports.