November 09, 2005
ESPN Steroid Report
ESPN's six month investigative report on steroids in baseball is now on-line. It's well worth the read. It's told in a series of vignettes and names some new names, including Lenny Dykstra. None of it is surprising.
It also fails to tackle the real question; did steroids really make a difference? Or put another way, how much of the boom in power was caused by weight lifting alone? Also, which was closer to the truth, the estimates of use by Canseco and Caminiti, or the 11% positive tests in the minor leagues? Clearly, there were a number of players using these substances, but it's also clear there were a good many who weren't. I'd love to know where that line was drawn.
Posted by David Pinto at
06:52 PM
|
Cheating
|
TrackBack (0)
From the article, ISTM that steroids might give a player 2-4 years of increased production, but that they also create a greater risk of severe injury in terms of muscles ripping off of bones and the like. Now every strained rib cage is going to be suspicious to me.
I was very glad that this report covered the increased recovery which is critical to a long grinding season and being able to maintain strength throughout.
I still have not seen anyone mentioning the issue of how HGH may improve eyesight and thus hitting (as does lasik, you can buy ted williams eyesight now)
I have been ranting on about this since 2002, no one loves me enough to listen, rant now more or less permanently here:
http://www.tariksaleh.com/rant.html
its the eyebulbs folks (and the recovery)
Dykstra is a new name? Stories about him appeared quite a while ago.
The most interesting part, to me, was the thing about Bonds hitting 3 HR's over 450 feet (all 3 were wind-aided,too) before he turned 36... then hitting 30 of them after he turned 36.
Dykstra is a poster boy ... not only did he bulk up but he quickly added power to his game. It would be a shock if he had not juiced
Dykstra also was never as productive, nor very durable, after that 1993 monster season he had. On the other hand, a lot of that team had career years that year, both hitters and pitchers, so you have to wonder about some of them, as well.
But with the other Phils, it's also clear that they just caught lightning in a bottle that year, with the Pirates losing defections, the Cardinals stuck in 80s mode still, the Mets falling apart, the Braves in the NL West, etc. etc. So the division, steroids or not, was there for the taking.
By the way, where did the 11% figure for minor league use come from? There are over four thousand players active on minor league rosters, so that figure would mean nearly 500 positives.
The numbers I've seen have been far lower. An August 27, 2005 story by Greg Ball of the Californian (Google minor league baseball steroid use percentage, and you'll find it) gave a figure of 81 positives, or about two percent of all minor league active players.
There may have been some more positives since then, but those numbers seem a lot closer to what's appeared on the MLB and MiLB sites.
I tracked down the 11% figure in the story. It's supposedly from...2001! For some reason (you don't have to guess real hard why) ESPN didn't use the much lower numbers from 2005.
The fact that ESPN didn't use or even mention more recent data makes me suspicious of their entire story. Sounds like the typical steroid hysteria from Barney Olney.
One more howler from ESPN:
"But when Giambi embraced Torre, was growth hormone coursing through his veins, the way he told a grand jury it had in 2003?"
Guys, the only way growth hormone wasn't coursing through Giambi's veins was if he was dead and/or had no pituitary gland function. Growth hormone is a natural substance produced by the pituitary, though the levels decrease with age. That's why it's so hard to test for it.
Sorry, that should be Buster Olney. He's still pretty hysterical (in both senses) about steroids. The tiny percentages of players caught this year both at the minor and major league levels would argue that the problem is at least getting better.
But Buster can't have that. He's got to sell his SI-wannabe rag. So he's not about to look at more recent numbers that suggest steroid use is not a major issue.
I fail to see how anyone can question whether steroids made a difference. It seems quite obvious that they did.
I'm sorry, I expected more from the ESPN story. This is not hard-hitting investigative journalism. It is essentially a rehash and a compilation of information that has been available for sometime. ESPN and the magazine were part of the problem then (as they acknowledge) and they remain part of the problem today if this is the best they can do.
Canseco's book has been right on target thus far. Lets have a little follow-up on the players named in Jose's book. Lets investigate the gyms these players work out in during the off season.
Palmeiro, Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi have no credibility. Where are the outraged player comments such as Mike Greenwell's, players who didn't cheat and whose accomplishments are minimized by those who did.
yeah that article is worthless to anyone who's even moderately kept up with this story.
the other glaring omission from all this hue and cry is the presence of some tragedy. if this stuff is so dangerous and so prevalent, what players have been shown to have experienced severe health problems and had their careers or lives end as a result?
giambi had health problems which may have been related, but he came back the next year and was great.
caminiti's name gets lumped in to this story, but it wasn't steroids that killed him, it was crack.