ptatc

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.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:36 PM) Thanks WT. Unfortunately I know a lot about it from seeing the damage first hand. Sad.. I wish it was zero tolerance. I agree also

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:35 PM) OT.. is a BMI of 14.4 good for a 31 year old..??? I assume your refrring to yourself? If you are it's good for a female. For male it should be a little lower.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) Any of you folks that weren't here earlier today and didn't yet comment.. care to comment on Jose's testimony today..? Anyone's opinion change about him? Think his motives are sincere? I still believe his only motive is money. He admits he could write this book because he has no friends in baseball so it didn't matter. Side note: I saw him at an ST game one year when he was playing for Texas. He was giving autographs to kids. He was giving them two each saying" keep one for yourself and see that guy over there he'll buy the other one for 50 bucks. Take and go buy lunch for your family." He sat there for an hour after the game for the kids. In my dealings with hime he wasn't a bad guy.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:20 PM) But you're saying that all medical studies about steroids are utterly useless. So why aren't all medical studies utterly useless, since they use similar methods? Btw, since no reputable doctor would prescribe steroids for a healthy athlete, technically ANY such use constitutes abuse. The problem is that there are no real clinical studies showing the effects of steriods on humans. No researcher can ethically or legally give someone a substance to see if it hurts them. All the research has been done on animals. We can infer what hapeened to the animals may happen in humans and we are probably right. This however just gives more ammunition to the opposing opinion.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) ptatc - My friend did a small cycle and gained 17 lbs, and went from benching 225 9 times to benching 225 15 times Thats not a bad increase for one cycle. That won't last long however and to keep it up he'll need to continue the cycles. See how long the increse lasts without continuing the cycles. This is where the health problems will arise, the continued use. It's the true conundrum of steriod use. The gains don't continue without the continued cycles and the problem and side effects increase with increased cycles. The psychological effects are inherent also. Your buddy may say "this little cycle helped me this much, it won't hurt if I do a little more and a little more won't hurt me much." As I stated before I've seen too many professional and college athletes fall into this and would strongly suggest that you or your buddy shouild stop this. However as I tell all of them I can give advice but you are your own man for better or worse.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:52 PM) not true my friend has made huge gains on bench press, without abusing, and without getting acne The acne part was a joke. What were the gains and the level and the length of use that will determine the abuse? If the gains were less than a 40% gain in the 1 time max rep than it wouldn't be sufficient to make a difference on an athletic field. You will not see the side effect for at 8-10 cycles. If he has been using it for less than that ( if its an oil based steriod) he won't have them yet. Steriods make the person feel good in the short term. It's the effect it has on the body long term that is the problem.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) Yeah, absolutely, we're mostly just disagreeing on semantics, anyway. Tried the subliminal mssg, but I don't know how to make it as small as I want! It was a good try though!!!! I tried to make a come back the same way but I couldn't get it to work that well so I gave up.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:40 PM) yeah key word in there... ABUSE The only way to get the radical gains in performance is to abuse them. If you use them at low dosage, you only get marginal improvements in performance and a real bad case of acne.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) Okay, but then it's the players making the real choice every time they vote him back in. They value money over better policy. Not saying it wouldn't be a common choice in any circle, but it's not like he's brainwashing them. I agree but as I said earlier he makes them a ton of money so they keep him in. As Steff pointed out he doesn't negotiate the contrats but he does things such as refusing to go for the salary cap, keep in the arbitration process which artificailly increases their pay when he negotiates the CBA. Just from my dealings in the different professional sports the players in the MLB follow him more than any other sport follows what their respective leaders say. You may very well be correct but as Steff said we can agree to disagree

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) did I say those other things were cool? No I did not.. I dont understand where you get operating machinery while under the influence from what I said, I think I made it pretty clear what I was talking about.. Give me a list, with the EXACT percentage of wrestlers who have died from steroids since the Hogan era with proof it was caused from steroids.. without that I dont believe that bulls***.. so far, from what I have witnessed with my friends.. it has not "decreased" any qulaity in their life.. Listen to Steve Courson talk. He has had a heart transplant and a liver transplant due to his abuse of steroids in the NFL. How about Lyle Alzado who deid of a brain tumor caused from the steriods. While its true that there has been no clinical trails to definitively state steriods will kill you (as stated at the hearings) the evidence is growing as the NFL players from the late 70's to early 90's get older. We will see how many die early. Todd Bell from the Bears in the 80's died of a heart attack at the age of 46. While this does occur in the normal population it shouldn't occur in a man of his fitness level at the time of death. I'm not saying he was on steriods for sure butt watch the deaths of NFL players from the time period when they had a minimal steriod policy and it may change your mind.