ptatc

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Contusion = deep bone bruise. They vary in extermity of course, seeing as my wrist contusion made me unable to lift anything for two months. But seeing as how I am frail like the elderly, Rowand should be fine. A contusion does not imply a bone bruise. A boe bruise usually involves an inflammation of the periosteum or the covering of the bone. This covering doesn't bleed so they are painful but do not show up as contusions. In order for the bone to bleed it would need to fracture. What you may have had was the periostitis along with the normal contusion because in order to get to the bone you usually injure the soft tissue as well.

QUOTE(thelatinoheat_30 @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 06:40 PM) just saw on comcast that rowand was in a single A game today(to work on a hip flexor injury) and got hit by a pitch on the shoulder. he now has a contussion, dunno what that means and that's all they said on it. Contusion=bruise

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) Congress holds the anti-trust exemption as the trump card. There's no question the IOC will have an impact on collegiate sports. That impact should trickle down to high schools. The pressure will increase over that time for MLB. That exemption is just as important to the players as the owners. I agree with all of your points in theory and I wish they would come true. But IMHO because of the of the difference in the cost and procedures with blood testing versus urine testing, you will not see much of a change in professional sports a or coolegiate sports. High schools will not test for steriods. Remember when they were talking about how to test for cocaine and such in high school? It won't go anyway due to the cost and issues of dealing with minors and privacy.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) One reason Borchard has gotten a longer leash than most is that he does whatever is asked of him and works as hard, if not harder, than anyone in the organization. The guy is a class act, on and off the field, even if he hasn't gotten the results that everyone, including Borchard, expected. Not to mention the 5.3 mil signing bonus the largest in Sox history. I do however agree with everything else you said.

Without a doubt,MB. You can't replace your best pitcher. Look at the offense last year without Frank and Maggs with no good replacements. We still scored tons of runs but couldn't stop anyone from scoring. In baseball pitching and defense wins. Does anyone know the fundamental difference between baseball and all other sports? The defense has control of the ball/puck/object. This is why pitching and defense is so important.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 04:58 PM) This is what I was told.. Mark is fine and it's been a tab bit exaggerated. Small stress fracture (which I guess is not really a "real" fracture but a "bend" of the bone and not really a "crack" in the bone ) of the bone that joins the top of the foot to the toe. Little bit of discomfort, but he's walking fine today and it's not even swollen. Having more tests. From the look and feel of it today, doesn't look/feel at all serious. What happened... Mark was out catching balls and he just went to move to scoop up a ball and his foot kind of went sideways and he heard a little snap. Initially thought it was just dislocated because it swelled immediately and he literally could not put any pressure on it (which sounds like where they (reporters) got the torn ligament assumption - and is in line with what I heard last night). So.. sounds like he's going to be fine. It couldn't have been "just a dislocation," In order to dislocate he would have has to injury many ligaments and the capsule as well. Hopefully it was just a "jam" or capsulitis and the snap he heard were just the tendons rolling over.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 05:06 PM) Anyone else thinking that the Sox trainers are offically the anti-Cub trainers? Cubs Trainers: "He'll be out a few day"="He may not play again this season" Sox Trainers: "He'll be out at least a month or 3"="He'll walk it off and be just fine" Herm is one of the best in the business and will stay there until he retires. The Cubs keep rotating them with mangerial changes and more. There is nothing else to say.

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) True. Torn ligaments are more of a nagging injury to heal. A bone break usually takes a set amount of time to heal. This is usually true for thr typical ankle sprain. However, if it involves the great toe as most people are saying then it is a little different. Mostly due to the amount of swelling that occurs. There is not as much room for the swelling around the toe so the healing is different.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) Can anyone, from a medical standpoint, say whether or not it would be "better" for Buehrle to have a broken bone in his toe/foot, or a torn ligament? I assume the bone would be "better" (meaning he'd be out less time with that than the torn ligament), but can someone say for sure? It really depends on the ligament injured and how badly "sprained" it is. A fracture is 4-6 weeks. A ligament can be anywhere from 1 week for a mild sprain to 8-10 weeks for a more severe sprain. If he is walking as well as they say he is, then I would guess no more than a month for the very worst case. If the CT reveals a fracture then you are back to the 4-6 week area.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) 2nd MRI was inconclusive, showed no break. Will have a CT scan tommorrow. No limp today, feels much better. If they are doing a CT scan then bone is what they are looking at, especially if the MRI was inconclusive, not that MRI's are all that accurate anyway.

Thet said on the radio that he was going for a second MRI and bone scan. This means they still aren't sure what is causing the pain, a ligament or a bone. I didn't hear where it was but if it was the great toe then it could mean longer problems. This is the "turf toe" where it hurts every time you push off that foot during walking running or anything else. Since it's his left foot which sits on the rubber, he needs to extend the toe futher. This will take longer to rehab. Let's wait to see the definitive diagnosis (ligament or bone) before any predictions of return to throwing can be made.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 09:44 AM) The never-ending thread. I must add to it. I feel compelled to. Jose is wrong & the stance by the Olympic comm is proof of that. He may have written the book before then so I give him the benefit of that doubt. But when you consider all of the sports that are part of the Olympics today it's going to trickle down. It's inevitable. I see the Olympics as the front-line in testing for doping. It's where all the R&D is going to come from. Those methods will become mass-produced & integrated in first college athletics & then high school athletics. The simple reason being that roids & doping in general threaten the integrity of scholarships & Title IX. They won't allow that to happen. Because the Olympic comm has taken such a hard-line stance the issue is not going to die. When Frank is inducted into the HOF there will still be athletes disqualified from Olympic play because they were doping. By then roids will have probably faded away in favor of HGH or something new. As for Fehr's biggest worry (genetic manipulation) as long as MLB does everything the Olympic comm does he can say they've done everything possible to insure the integrity of the game. If Fehr didn't get the message on Thursday hopefully someone should tell him: FOLLOW THE IOC when it comes to this issue. Pretty simple. Manfred can just copy their documentation It's very difficult to compare the Olympics (amatuer sports) vs. any professional sport. The Olympics don't deal with a union and they use blood tests to find many of the banned substances. No professional sports use blood tests therefore will not be able to detect many substances including HGH. Rumor had in MLB that Sammy was on HGH therefore even with the new standards he will not get caught.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:25 PM) Ask and you shall receive. Gload pops out. Dye whiffs. Everett left on second. After 1, 1-0 good guys. Those aren't the type of updates for which I was looking. How about back to back to back jacks!!! Just kidding Thanks for doing the updates

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:22 PM) Iguchi singles. Double for Everett...Sox up 1-0. Anybody want updates? Otherwise I won't bother. I would luuuv updates!!!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) A lot of interesting things here. Baseball's leaders came off as complete assclowns. Bud Selig gave some of the most self-serving answers of all of them. He didn't want this issue in public just as much as anyone else. He could have made this a public issue, or at worst, he has the ability to enact these kind of rules for the good of the game, without subjecting them to collective bargining. If he really wanted something done, he could have done it. And as a former used car salesman, he knows all of the backdoors. I agree that the MLB leaders looked bad especially Manfred. But I think the union looked worse. Schilling's elitist attidtude really got annoying and Congress showed it. Fehr took the brunt of it when Selig said I wanted a tougher policy but the union wouldn't go for it. While it's somewhat of a "he said this and I said that" arguement, Selig has some basis for fact that they instituted a more strict policy in the minor which he did not need to negotiate with the union.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:25 PM) I don't know about how those studies were done, but I wonder how much of that is because "research standard" in medicine is such an incredibly high standard. Studies that were 'improperly performed' in medicine would in many other fields be considered lead-pipe-cinch convincing. That's partly true. The most statsical rigorous research deals with pure number such as the SABR people in baseball. they like them becasue they are clean. In medicine it is the direct cause and effect that is the best. I take two groups and give one steriods and give the others a placebo. I run them though the exact same exercise program and see what happens. Use a double blind method so I don't know which person is in which group. If I do this for 20 years I will hve my strong research study. Most drugs go through Stage I, II and III research which last around 7 years or so. This is why drugs cost so much to invent and produce. Again no one will allow a researcher to do this to a person so we are left with just watching what happens to people who have admitted to taking them. Most of it is from the NFL. This is tainted because many researchers believe NFL player die sooner because of all o fthe impact they suffer in the game. Again confounding factors which cloud our view on steriods. A great book I read was on the East German female swimmers of the 60's-early 70"s. They put the physician's on trial who gave them massive amounts of steriods against their knowledge. It isa great read and very revealing. However, in the end the physician's didn't have any real penalties because the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:12 PM) Well...no clinical trials on the long-term effects. But TRU was also arguing that there are no short term effects. And there is some evidence on the long-term effects, even if it isn't from clinical trials. (Historical + survey studies exist, I'd guess, which can still be scientifically done. You may know this literature better than I would.) Just saying, even if the evidence isn't as clean and perfect as we'd like, doesn't mean it can be dismissed. True enough. There are retrospective studies about the long term effects but they are mostly anecdotal and don't stand up to research standard rigors. Unfortunately as the people who used them in the US (the boom time was the 70's-early 90's) get older we will be able to collect more data.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:08 PM) ^ The look of a man who realizes he's dug himself in deep. Also, the look of a man who realizes his bracket is screwed when he put Bama in the Elite 8. UWM beating Alabama...I picked it!!! (only because I know the trainer and was rooting for him)

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis. I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second. I have seen that study. The thing is it was a well done study however it measured only the behavioral effects of a short 2 week cycle. It addresses neither the physical or long term effects of anabolic steriods. I'm sure it made it by the IRB because it was short term with no invasive measures required to examine the physical effects. Let's get one thing straight, I am dead set against steriod use. We just don't have hard sceintific evidence to convince everyone of this.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:57 PM) Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it. Sorry, I didn't realize the underlined was a link. I'm going to check it out.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis. I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second. Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it.

I don't know about anyone else but there really wasn't a whole lot new in the hearings. However, if it helps MLB as a whole get more done about banishing steriods it was worth it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:50 PM) I'm 5'6" and some of those weight things say I should weigh 130... if I weighed 130 I would kill myself. Exactly, those things are decent for references but a healthy lifestyle with regular health check ups is the most important thing.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:46 PM) Yea.. myself. I got a BMI analysis done reciently and from it, and it claims for my height and weight I should have a BMI in the 18 to 20 range....?? Like most of the standards in use today they are out of date and don't apply to reality. My favorite is the % body fat scale at 5'8' I should weigh about 160 pounds. I run marthons and I haven't been below 175 since 8th grade.

Was that the guy over McGwire's left shoulder? I was noticing that for most of the testimony.