Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 15, 2005
Steroid Details

The New York Times was given a letter by Stanley Brand, attorney for Major League Baseball, with some details of the drug testing results from 2003 and 2004.

There were 73 positive tests for the steroid nandrolone among baseball players in 2003, but only one for nandrolone in 2004, according to a five-page cover letter attached to about 400 pages of documents that Major League Baseball gave the House Government Reform Committee this week.

...

Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a steroids expert at New York University who has been called to testify to the committee on Thursday, said the dramatic drop in nandrolone could have two explanations, but he said it did not assure him that baseball has solved its steroids problem.

It could have been that many more players in 2003 than 2004 were injecting Deca-durabolin, one of the most powerful and long-lasting anabolic steroids, which contains nandrolone, Dr. Wadler said. Or, he said, a more likely explanation could be that players started avoiding dietary supplements that contained a related chemical, 19-norandrostenedione.

Dr. Wadler said steroids users would know to avoid the injectable form of nandrolone because it is long-lasting in the body.

Congress acted last year to add 19-norandrostenedione to the list of banned substances, effective this year.

This passage points out how difficult it is to know for sure what's going on. 19-Norandrostenedione was legal; when in became illegal, use dropped. But players also could have been using it unawares if it were in dietary supplements!

This is one reason I argue against draconian punishments for a first offense. All we ever get from these tests are probabilities that players are cheating. It's difficult in many cases to get a clear cut answer.

Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive during March. Click here for details.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:15 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Since they're being very careful about the information they make public, you have to wonder if there's any kind of manipulation going on. I.e. is the definition of "positive" the same as it was in '03?

Posted by: Jason at March 16, 2005 08:54 AM

Your point is well taken regarding first-time offenders. In fact, you've shifted my view a bit.

Given that testing does not produce 100% certainty of guilt, perhaps the stronger onus needs to be on repeat offenders.

Should a third offense equal the big K - a lifetime ban? I think so. If baseball is serious.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2005 09:32 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?