Don't kid yourself, Manny was doping

That's not the title of this article, but it should be. Manny had a testosterone spike in spring training that led to MLB's discovery of his hCG prescription. But hCG does not cause testosterone spikes, and MLB had persuasive evidence that Manny's condition had to have been produced synthetically -- in other words, by a banned steroid -- that is, something else he was taking aside from hCG.

Manny avoided further investigation on that point by accepting his suspension and dropping the planned hearing. What we find in the medical records isn't exoneration at all, but rather a hint of the legitimate and illegitimate mechanisms that elite ballplayers (Boras clients?) will go through to keep doping under the current testing regime. This is a victory for the system -- sort of.

about 3 years ago Jay 29 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

See, ESPN can do good investigative reporting when it wants to.

by Buckeye Brad on May 12, 2009 11:02 AM EDT reply actions

But they buried the lead.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on May 12, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions

So, I wonder if this was just bad timing on Manny’s part? Maybe he thought he could sneak another cycle while he was holding out on his contract? Maybe this explains why he was flaking out on showing up to the Dodgers compound those first couple of days (trying to find a way to mask his cycle)? We will never know.

I still believe that most elite athletes are doping in some manner. Too much money, information and designer drugs out there for people not to risk the temptation.

by Toxicadam on May 12, 2009 12:00 PM EDT reply actions

Hmm. You mean T.O. didn’t get that ripped with Terrell Owens Resistance Bands?

by fleerdon on May 12, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Doping will be around as long as there is such a fine line between earning millions professionally or being the bagger in aisle 5… Give me that choice and I will dope eleven times out of ten…

Stuart Dean

by stuart dean on May 12, 2009 2:30 PM EDT reply actions

Me too. I’m not critical of Manny for doping. If anything, my desire for him to be “nailed” is in the hope that eventually, we can stop all this preachy judgmentalism, where one player is presumed to be soiled while another is presumed to be pure. Almost all of them are guilty on the one hand, and on the other hand, none of them are.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on May 12, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Almost all of them are guilty on the one hand, and on the other hand, none of them are.

That is the best and truest statement about PEDs I have ever read or heard.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on May 13, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I have the opposite reaction to it.

by dgcambridge on May 13, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Almost none of them are guilty on the one hand and on the other hand all of them are?

by afh4 on May 13, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Yep, so I basically agree!

by dgcambridge on May 13, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Maybe I was just reacting to my own feeling about steroids. Almost everyone was doping, so they’re guilty in the sense that the substances were banned (at least after they actually were banned). My take on the “none of them are” is that everyone in the sport condoned their behavior, it made for exciting baseball, the owners made a boatload of money, the league looked the other way because it was good for the gate, and only after the truth started coming out did everyone get sanctimonious and turn on the players. I’m totally sick of the whole PEDs thing. I never want to read another word about it again.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on May 15, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions

remember when jack cust got caught. im glad no one else does either.

by I'd give my legs for Wegz on May 12, 2009 4:41 PM EDT reply actions

LaPorta is a Boras client.

[redacted]

by salome on May 12, 2009 6:39 PM EDT reply actions

Let’s hope his heavy religious values have steered him away from roids

by Roger Dorn on May 12, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions

If Paul Byrd is any indication, it’ll just steer him toward a righteous rationalization. Which is pretty much par for the course.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on May 12, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

God’s will?

I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck

by Turkmenbashi on May 12, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions

This is sadly generalizable to pretty much any intersection of religious values and real life.

by still ill on May 13, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Um, no.

by Roger Dorn on May 13, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I don’t think so.

Sometimes, I just like to b****.

by emd2k3 on May 13, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions

I think people who are more public (even showy) with their religion sometimes cast a shadow over those who are not at all public about it. Those who practice their religion in private life certainly do not have a particularly high incidence of hypocrisy or disgrace.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on May 13, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Society only takes notice (mostly) of the hypocrites.

Sometimes, I just like to b****.

by emd2k3 on May 13, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree.

For some it is all just talk (see Matthew 7:23), but for others who really make it a part of their lives, it is a positive influence.

See the following article: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, by Ronald J. Sider.

He sites some of George Barna’s research. Much of the picture is pretty bad, when it comes to those who self-identify as Christian, born-again or evangelical. According to Barna’s criteria, 40% of the population self-identifies as born-again. 7-8% fits his definition of “evangelical.”

But Barna also developed another category: those with a “Biblical worldview.” 9% of all adults fit this group according to Barna. This group probably mostly overlaps with “evangelical,” but not totally. This group DOES display changed behavouir, as cited in the article.

(It is still far from perfect, so this is not intended as cause for celebration but cause for hope.)

by Matt Y. on May 13, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Great response… and sorry to all of you. I was definitely overreaching.
I think between Jay’s and Matt Y’s responses, they managed to cover everything I ought to have said but didn’t.

by still ill on May 13, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Probably a bad idea to get into a religious discussion at all. I will just say, those who make a real commitment to live their lives by a moral code — whatever that may be — intuitively have a better chance of living morally than those who are just going to improvise their morality day by day. And that’s true only because morality is just like anything else we might choose to pursue (or not to pursue) in our lives.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

by Jay on May 13, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions