Ryan Braun tests positive for PED
Ho-ly crap.
5 months ago
ahowie
91 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
From the article:
For example, taking a dietary supplement that contains an unlabeled performance-enhancing drug would not be sufficient grounds for appeal, but if he were to show that he ingested something that was either tampered with or no player reasonably could have assumed to have been contaminated, the appeal might succeed.
So if you take something, can prove that you had no idea they stuff contained a PED and it was not labeled on the bottle, you still get banned? That seems silly…though I am sure someone can explain to me why it is not.
Also: this is a bummer. I know that PEDS users can sneak up on you—they just are not for bulked up dudes—but I never would have guessed Braun.
Because (a) you can’t prove knowledge or lack of knowledge, and (b) it puts the responsibility on the players to ingest substances obtained only from highly credible sources.
Otherwise, I can give you a big bottle of hGH and label it Vitamin C, and you can say, “I had no idea!”
Uhh, by the way—that Vitamin C you sent me? It’s doing weird things to my personal life.
by afh4 on Dec 11, 2011 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’d like to discuss those B12 shots we took in Vegas, too.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 11, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So he learned he’d failed a month before the season ended but he was still allowed to play in the playoffs and win an MVP?
What more evidence could you want that MLB actually doesn’t give a flying ____ about steroid use? It’s all about keeping up appearances.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 10, 2011 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So you’re saying, they should say “screw confidentiality” and let the appeal process play out in the media? That seems fair to you?
Hmm, fair.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2011 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Imagine if the Indians make the playoffs in 2012 and Carlos Santana were to suffer a false positive test in September. Despite questions about the authenticity of the result, the league makes Santana sit out of the playoffs. In December, tests show that the earler test was a false positive, or at least that Santna should not have even suspended.
The way it was handled is the right way to do things. The only misstep is whoever leaked the story in the first place. And I mean that sincerely, even if the positive result is ultimately upheld.
The way it was handled is the right way to do things. The only misstep is whoever leaked the story in the first place.
This. Braun’s people have hinted at a legitimate defense, but can’t discuss it while the appeal plays out. I have no idea whether he has a case or not, but for now we get months to demonize the guy before he even gets a say in defending himself.
I’d rather not hear about these cases until the appeal process is over.
I couldn’t care less, he’s a damn good hitter.
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 10, 2011 8:36 PM EST reply actions
This is the most frustrating part of it all. Barry Bonds was a great hitter, Mark McGuire was a great hitter, they didn’t need this to be great. They didn’t need to risk the public smearing that has taken place.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
I believe that McGwire could not have stayed healthy enough to do even half of what he did, had he not used PED.
That is probably accurate. I had the discussion with my roommate about this last night, explaining it isn’t about hitting more home runs or running faster or throwing harder, but about staying healthy and energized on a daily basis.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
Which is why the medical guidelines should be different for pro athletes, and a lot of this stuff shouldn’t be banned for them. It’s fundamentally a medical treatment. Performance enhancement via superior health and injury recovery should not be banned.
You’ve intrigued me. While I have always largely agreed with the usage that you outline, clearly, I haven’t necessarily thought that it should be legal as a result. I’m going to think on that, though.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
I don’t know if it’s a difference in legality or a difference in generally accepted medical guidelines. I am under the impression, however, that the current PED rules have reached the point where they tie physicians’ hands on some issues. That just doesn’t make sense. Just as with Tommy John surgery, anything we can do to give a pro athlete the chance to perform at his best should be seen as a good thing.
by Jay on Dec 11, 2011 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think this makes sense. Doctors shouldn’t be factoring in monetary success for their patients when determining treatments I don’t think. Steroids have plenty well-documented harmful side effects to justify a concern or ban. Like a heart medication that kills tons of patients – steroids deserve the recall they get.
It’s not about monetary success, though. It’s about the demands of his profession and being realistic about the physiology of a patient who is an outlier by definition.
Steroids have plenty well-documented harmful side effects
Steroids come in all shapes and sizes — and applications. It’s truly silly to make a blanket statement like this.
Yeah, aren’t steroids just any 4-ringed carbohydrate? More explicitly: anabolic steroids are bad for your liver, bad for your heart, bad for your kid makers, bad for your mental health. Pretty bad. (HGH is just protein, so who knows if it’s bad to take artificially. It probably does a whole lot less for you than anabolic steroids tho.) Still, point is, you indicated that doctor’s should prescribe differently in order to augment athletes. You don’t take a perfectly healthy individual and expose them to all sorts of bad side effects to make their workouts “meet” the demands of their job description. That doesn’t sound right (I’m sure any doc on this board with 5 minutes of ethics training could tell me if I’m right or wrong), and it’s not the same thing as a doctor choosing to repair a blown knee on an athlete and letting it go on a non-athlete.
You don’t take a perfectly healthy individual and expose them to all sorts of bad side effects to make their workouts "meet" the demands of their job description. That doesn’t sound right (I’m sure any doc on this board with 5 minutes of ethics training could tell me if I’m right or wrong), and it’s not the same thing as a doctor choosing to repair a blown knee on an athlete and letting it go on a non-athlete.
Don’t tell this to the several generation of Air Force pilots who were required to take amphetamines before long duration flights. Or to the vast swath of people who ingest coffee like its a magical work-fairy (myself included).
What I am advocating is that physicians should have a free hand to get players healthy and keep them healthy, not to “augment athletes” on an ad hoc basis.
I believe that McGwire’s steroid use helped him get healthy and stay healthy, mainly although perhaps not exclusively, and I support that and think it should be legal and allowed.
Just enough factual information in there joeee to be misleading. No they’re not " just any 4-ringed carbohydrate" and hGH’s effects are very complex, but one of the things it does is cause the increase production of intrinsic hormones as well as a higher circulating levels of specific hormones.
Too complicated to discuss right now. I’ll get back to you.
Our best players wear suits.
And oh yeah, hGH is not a “protein” per se. It’s a poly peptide. I fine distinction I’ll grant you, but a distinction nonetheless.
Our best players wear suits.
Chuck, what the hell are you talking about?
The major isoform of the human growth hormone is a protein of 191 amino acids and a molecular weight of 22,124 daltons.
I’m talkking about this:
Growth hormone is a 191-amino acid, single-chain polypeptide
Our best players wear suits.
A protein is a collection of one or more polypeptides! No more talking about this!
by joeee on Dec 13, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Doctors shouldn’t be factoring in monetary success for their patients when determining treatments
Happens all the time. Take me for instance. I has a heart valve replaced. There’s essentially two types of valves. One is made of steel the other type is made of animal tissue. The steel one requires the use of anti-coagulants but lasts longer. The tissue one does not require anti-coagulants. If I took anti-coagulants I couldn’t work overseas thus adversely effecting my income. Gues which kinda valve I got.
Our best players wear suits.
And systematically reducing the health of their patients in order to improve a very specific aspect of their patients physical performance. Better yields from workouts to hit more home runs, and the check is written by the rest of your organ systems. Don’t make sense.
Well they are of course. Next time you need some penicillin see how much the office visit is. Doc’s control the drug distribution just like any other street corner pharmaceutical rep.
Our best players wear suits.
I get the doctor cynicism thing, and I get that it can’t be discounted.
But Braun walks into a doctor’s office – no wait, let’s say Braun walks into a teaching hospital to get examined. Bunch of med students in the room, doctor wants to do the right thing. Doctor gives Braun a check-up. Concludes he’s likely one of the healthiest people he’s seen in his career. Prescribes him nothing, visit over.
by joeee on Dec 13, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
More likely scenario. Braun goes into the doc’s office. Doc asks, “why are you here today”. Braun says, “my shoulder aches”. Doc asks a few questions and decides the pain is from over use. Says “well we already tried non-steroidal anti-inflamatories, let’s try the real thing.” Braun leaves the Doc’s office with a fistful of prescription. On the way out the receptionist says, “That’ll be $1,462.54 Mr. Braun. You wanna pay cash or use your credit card?”
Our best players wear suits.
by mauichuck on Dec 13, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And I personally see nothing really wrong with that. If doctor and patient are okay with it, I’m okay with it. Nobody else has the right to make those judgments.
Here’s where we disagree. Doc says: take this to make your shoulder better, but you’re now exposed to a much greater likelihood of liver failure, heart failure, depression. It’s grey, we all get that fact. But a doc is faced with that ethical decision and it is illegal for them to knowingly reduce the health of their patients.
It’s not ethics, it’s medicine. Everybody- that would be from kids to athletes to geriatrics – that takes PO cortisone risks getting a peptic ulcer – everybody. The doc’s decision point is this: can I track it and is the benefits of using this drug worth the risk?
Side effects is a misnomer. There’s just effects. Some are beneficial, some are not. Each patient presents a different set of circumstances, risks ane rewards. Kinda like baseball
Our best players wear suits.
it is illegal for them to knowingly reduce the health of their patients.
But how is a doctor supposed to evaluate the marginal detrimental effect of a cycle of steroids (in a specific individual) versus the postive impact of a free agent market contract?
I don’t see that the doctor has an ethical dilemma. His obligation is to make the benefits and risks clear to the patient and make his recommendation. The real ethical problem comes when the doctor is faced with a patient who wants to do something that the doctor feels is unjustifiable in terms of quality of care. It is the patient, not the doctor, who is going to push the risk profile in these cases
Having said that, should the clubs monitor their players’ medical care closely to guard against abuses? Sure.
Should the MLBPA educate its members as to the long-term risks, to make sure that an unscrupulous doctor and their own ambitions don’t lead them down a dangerous path? Sure. Ask the NFLPA what they’re doing in this area.
But neither of those things requires any medical therapy to be made illegal or prohibited by the game itself. It is fundamentally a medical decision and best left in that realm.
You know what would be the best option for every player’s long-term health? Retiring.
by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A thoughtful response.
I would imagine athletes are the last people on the planet who would qualify for receiving anabolic steroids. No shortage of testosterone/puberty/mass in those guys.
I dunno, I bet retirement correlates to weight gain and depression.
I watched him bat a few hundred times, 2001-2004. I knew I was seeing something I wouldn’t likely see again.
Well, not til this guy steps up to the plate, anyway.
by YoDaddyWags on Dec 12, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
dunno…depends on well he transitions to wood bats
by The Grimace on Dec 13, 2011 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
General Grievous?!?!
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2011 9:11 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Bonds maybe the best argument for the abnormal increase in power associated with anabolic hormones. He was a good HR hitter in Pittsburgh when he was probably hormone-free but an ungodly HR hitter in SanFran when he clearly was juicin’.
Our best players wear suits.
He was also entering his prime hitting years when he went to SF.
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
What’s the consensus time frame for McGwire? Was it the two injury plagued years in Oakland or was it before that?
Canseco says McGwire was regularly using steroids in the late ‘80s and early ’90s; McGwirer says he dabbled in steroids in 1989 but didn’t start using them regularly until after the 1993 season.
by YoDaddyWags on Dec 14, 2011 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
Back when I was on steroids, I wasn’t making as many typos.
by YoDaddyWags on Dec 14, 2011 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Anecdotally, sure, but there’s no reliable data to support that.
by Jay on Dec 15, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Outside of 2001 obviously, I don’t see anything that’s a serious anomaly. His power increased as he approached 30, but instead of declining like we might expect, he maintained it through 40. But if your power not declining from 30 to 40 is an obvious result of steroids, then what do we make of Hank Aaron?
A lot of people who criticize Bonds probably haven’t seen a lot of his at-bats and watch him work the count, and make any pitcher who comes close to his zone pay dearly. To me, he had the most efficient swing perhaps in the history of the game, resulting in bat speed that was on another level.
So true. His batting eye really separated him, putting him on a level above even Pujols and Ramirez at their peaks. He basically ceded the outside half of the strike zone to the pitcher. Anything outside of the inner half, he wasn’t swinging at — and he was rarely fooled.
So you could try to fool him, or you could try to throw three strikes by him on the outer half — but if you made a mistake inside, he took it for extra bases an alarming percentage of the time. And this was borne out in those games when he would be walked three or four times, only to take the ball deep on literally the first strike he’d seen in more than 24 hours.
but he did steroids which means without them he would have hit 200 home runs and retired at 32 zomg
I like ex-Phillies prospects.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 14, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
But my source — and again, this is from Braun’s end and not MLB — familiar with the test’s findings says the “prohibited substance” was not a performance-enhancing drug or steroid of any kind. And the source says there has “never” been a result like this in the history of the MLB testing program.
Tom Haudricourt of the Journal Sentinel
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
Tampering!
Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.
by USSChoo on Dec 12, 2011 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not jumping to the level of “!” just yet, but I am giving Braun the benefit of the doubt for now.
by jhon on Dec 12, 2011 2:24 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Bryce Harper’s triple against Halladay keys Nats win, Dodgers roar back
- Heather Nabozny of Tigers, Nicole Sherry of Orioles: Women groundskeepers in MLB
- 10 notable team reps for MLB’s upcoming draft
- Rays’ gladiator helmets: Fernando Rodney, Joel Peralta do as Romans do (VIDEO)
- Rickie Weeks forgets number of outs, passes up chance for inning-ending double play (VIDEO)
