Report on Bonds and steroids

[Chris D]

Sports Illustrated is about to hit the stands with an excerpt from "Game of Shadows," an expose book about Barry Bonds and steroids from San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. Something I found interesting in the story reporting on the book is the following (emphasis mine):

"The authors write that Anderson started Bonds on Winstrol, also known as stanozolol, the longtime favorite steroid of bodybuilders, disgraced sprinter Ben Johnson and baseball player Rafael Palmeiro. In 100 days, Bonds packed on 15 pounds of muscle, and at age 35 hit home runs at the best rate of his career, once every 10.4 at bats. But he also grew too big, too fast. He tore his triceps tendon, telling Bell that the steroids 'makes me grow faster, but if you're not careful, you can blow it out.'

"The book saysd Anderson and Bonds subsequently tweaked the program, adding such drugs as the steroid Deca-Durabolin and growth hormone, which allowed Bonds to retain his energy and physique without rigorous training. Not only did the growth hormone keep him fresh, but after complaining in 1999 about difficulty tracking pitches, he noticed it improved his eyesight as well."

[Jon Abbey]

that's what I said here a few years ago (as an educated guess), Jason Giambi being another perfect example.

[Al in NYC]

It also rather visibly swole up his head.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

LOTS of local focus on this, and many calls for Barry to step aside before the season begins. His hardcore fans say they don't care, he still had to hit the ball to do what he's done. Seems to have started in 1998, in the heat of the McGuire/ Sosa race.

[Enforcer]

A while back, Brian gave his reasons for why he thinks steroids don't have the impact on batting power that is commonly believed.

Brian, have any studies been conducted to confirm the issues you raised?

[Jon Abbey]

Fixed, in order to be more widely applicable:

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

A while back, Brian gave his reasons for why he doesn't believe anything unless hard evidence of it is literally shoved in his face, and even then he's not so sure.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

A while back, Brian gave his reasons for why he thinks steroids don't have the impact on batting power that is commonly believed.

Brian, have any studies been conducted to confirm the issues you raised?

Well, I think I cited one by BP though it was (necessarily) vague as we don't know who used and who didn't (or when), aside from some obvious guesses/admissions. They basically ran numbers for varying groups of assumed steroid users (10%, 30%, 50% etc.) to see if any perceivable group had more HRs than the control group and didn't find any.

Bonds' statement in the article Chris quotes would clearly be interesting, if true. It may be true. But, on the face of it, I'd have to say, in all the years of this controversy, I don't recall ever reading anything like, "Of course, steroids are known to increase visual acuity, depth perception etc. as well as increasing muscle mass." If this was an obvious benefit/side effect, I would have expected it to be cited, and often.

Back during the cocaine scandals, I do recall one of the "benefits" of use being commonly cited as just that: increased visual acuity.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

Fixed, in order to be more widely applicable:

"A while back, Brian gave his reasons for why he doesn't believe anything unless hard evidence of it is literally shoved in his face, and even then he's not so sure."

You say this as though it isn't, obviously, the proper way to view things.

[Scott Dolan]

decoded:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Fuck you, Jon Abbey. Fuck YOU!!!





*sniff*

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Well, I think I cited one by BP though it was (necessarily) vague as we don't know who used and who didn't (or when), aside from some obvious guesses/admissions. They basically ran numbers for varying groups of assumed steroid users (10%, 30%, 50% etc.) to see if any perceivable group had more HRs than the control group and didn't find any.

Wasn't a point of debate the distance balls were being hit in general? It seems to me the argument was that if steroids enable a batter to hit the ball farther by making him stronger, then the baseballs leaving his bat should generally travel farther. And I think your (their) point was that home run balls weren't being hit farther. So maybe the point was that something besides brute strength would have to be improved in order to explain an upturn in home run totals. Does that sound right?

Just to name something off the top of my head, if that's the gist of it, I'd wonder if the bat speed increase that might be expected to result from increased strength could assist a batter in making solid contact with the ball, if not hit it a much longer distance, necessarily.

[Chris D]

Or just help that formerly warning-track flyball go 360 feet instead of 350.

[Boris Badenov]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Bonds' statement in the article Chris quotes would clearly be interesting, if true. It may be true. But, on the face of it, I'd have to say, in all the years of this controversy, I don't recall ever reading anything like, "Of course, steroids are known to increase visual acuity, depth perception etc. as well as increasing muscle mass." If this was an obvious benefit/side effect, I would have expected it to be cited, and often.

The quote is about HGH, not steroids.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Or just help that formerly warning-track flyball go 360 feet instead of 350.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But I think Brian said that the home runs that were hit didn't go any farther. So instead of a lot of 380 foot homers and a few 420 foot ones, you'd expect to see more 400 foot ones and a few 440 foot ones. But that didn't happen.

If I'm remembering it right.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

The quote is about HGH, not steroids.

I thought it was about both?

[Chris D]

The eyesight is linked to growth hormone in the paraphrase.

[Jazz Purist]

I have read a number of reports just like this one over the past few years, but they rarely, if ever, offer any empirical evidence or proof of guilt. It's all speculation or hearsay in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt in my mind that Bonds is guilty, but there's a big difference between what you and I believe, and what we can prove.

I want that "defining moment" like we had in the Raphael Palmeiro case where proof was irrefutable. The sole purpose of this particular article/report is to increase readership in my opinion, and mentioning Bonds and Steroids together in the same sentence or paragraph is enough to do just that.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But I think Brian said that the home runs that were hit didn't go any farther. So instead of a lot of 380 foot homers and a few 420 foot ones, you'd expect to see more 400 foot ones and a few 440 foot ones. But that didn't happen.

If I'm remembering it right.

oh, that argument.

Yeah, that was purely anecdotal on my part. Essentially, I would've expected to see more 500 foot + HRs if steroids were causing players to hit the ball further. Purely off the top of my head, it seemed to me that, historically, you see 3-4 such over the course of the year. That seems to have remained consistent. I don't think we've seen 20-30.

Boris, I see it says a steroid and HGH. Is there general consensus that HGH promotes visual acuity? Just asking, it's simply something that doesn't ring a bell though I may have missed it.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Chris D

The eyesight is linked to growth hormone in the paraphrase.

Yes, and that was one of the things we talked about. I think that's why Brian singled that part out, because that would explain a whole lot, and yet it hasn't been discussed as a conclusive benefit of steroid use (not sure about HGH) in recent years.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

oh, that argument.

Yeah, that was purely anecdotal on my part. Essentially, I would've expected to see more 500 foot + HRs if steroids were causing players to hit the ball further. Purely off the top of my head, it seemed to me that, historically, you see 3-4 such over the course of the year. That seems to have remained consistent. I don't think we've seen 20-30.

Is that even tracked by anyone, though? I mean, how many balls are hit how many feet each year? Because once they leave the stands, it comes down to pretty much guesswork.

[Chris D]

Originally Posted by Jazz Purist

I have read a number of reports just like this one over the past few years, but they rarely, if ever, offer any empirical evidence or proof of guilt. It's all speculation or hearsay in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt in my mind that Bonds is guilty, but there's a big difference between what you and I believe, and what we can prove.

I want that "defining moment" like we had in the Raphael Palmeiro case where proof was irrefutable. The sole purpose of this particular article/report is to increase readership in my opinion, and mentioning Bonds and Steroids together in the same sentence or paragraph is enough to do just that.

No, it's much more documented than anything to date. Check this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...rowth.doc0313/

[moneyp]

One of the supposed benefits of growth hormone treatment is improved vision, but the level that distinguishes Bonds from every other player in the game is pretty refined, I would think. I'd be surprised if improvement to that level of acuity could be properly guaged.

As a side note, one of the side effects of growth hormone excess is impaired vision.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Is that even tracked by anyone, though? I mean, how many balls are hit how many feet each year? Because once they leave the stands, it comes down to pretty much guesswork.

I think it's more or less tracked though, yes, the actual distance is not only guesswork but ways of measuring it can vary. On the other hand, one can see, for instance, how many balls make it into the upper deck in Yankee Stadium (none hit into the left-center field bleachers, if I'm not mistaken, since the late 70s--curious!) or how many made it out of that dilapidated shell in Detroit before it was mercifully demolished. I haven't noticed an obvious increase.

In the pre-All Star game HR contest they do, I think we can assume, use pumped up balls (and bats?). That's the sort of production I'd expect to see if steroid use had the sort of effect people say it does on power.

btw, there was another study I cited a few months ago, quite objective, which showed that HRs/per 9 innings has stayed remarkably consistent since 1961. A pure, no doubt about it number: HR/9 innings. Hard to argue with.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I don't recall ever reading anything like, "Of course, steroids are known to increase visual acuity, depth perception etc. as well as increasing muscle mass." If this was an obvious benefit/side effect, I would have expected it to be cited, and often.

Agreed, Brian

if I might play, devils advocate here….

Let us assume steroids in fact increase visual acuity, how would elective LASIK Eye Surgery not be “cheating”, but steroids are?

Much of the hysteria toward steroids assumes that they stand apart from all other forms of training--that they are ugly, artificial, and alien to a culture of hard work and honest sweat. Nevertheless, the athlete's project has always been body modification and specialization, and when modern technology impacts elite sports, it doesn't stop at the outer layer of the player's skin. Trying to distinguish natural from artificial methods of training makes less and less sense by the year.

Players hire year-round personal trainers to identify weaknesses in their overall musculature, help build and balance muscle, and hone their reaction times. As recently as the early '80s, weightlifting ballplayers were rare. Now even the sorriest Major League parks have very nice weightlifting facilities and players freely mix weight training with other modern forms of training, such as plyometrics (a form of exercise that concentrates on explosive movements).

The days of rotisserie chicken and beer meals are over, too. Meal replacement powders, multivitamins, and protein bars are the new fuels. Many players even hire private chefs to prepare specialized diets. None of this is done blindly: In order to make sure they get a good return on their diets and training, top athletes may have their blood and urine tested and analyzed regularly. Products such as ZMA (zinc and magnesium) help combat any deficiencies or imbalances. Reportedly, BALCO offered this service to one of their more famous clients, you guessed it; Barry Bonds.

If players don't get the desired performance out of diet, diagnostics, and exercise, there's always surgery. How about Tommy John surgery, a ligament transplant invented for baseball players and named for the first pitcher to undergo the procedure. It has advanced to the point that the Chicago Cubs' Kerry Wood actually picked up velocity on his pitches after wrecking his arm and having the surgery. As I already noted, batters hoping to improve their pitch recognition skills can choose another elective procedure: laser eye surgery.

In short, sports technology isn't just for golf club shafts and running shoes. It's for muscles, ligaments, and organs, and it's getting more sophisticated all the time. If such technologies are available to everyone and if the health risks are low--or lower, at least, then getting pulverized by a bulky baserunner sprinting toward home plate--then why single out steroids?

Now ask yourself this: Where is Doc Martin serious and where is he breaking chops?
Any takers?

[Chris D]

If my son wants to refine his skills and body, I hope he uses nutrition, exercise and the scientific method to get there. I wouldn't want him to feel pressure to use steroids because "everyone else does, so I wouldn't have a chance to play top-level ball if I don't." You can't be advocating steroids for still growing bodies, Doc.

I mean, the kid's 6, and he sees Bonds and says, "Barry Bonds, he's a good hitter." Which he no doubt is. But how much would his skills have eroded by now if he didn't go on the juice in, from these reports, '98? How do I explain this to the kid?

[Enforcer]

Chris D's point about kids feeling pressured to take steroids just to compete is a valid one. On the other hand, I really don't care about major leaguers using steroids to improve performance (if they do, in fact, improve it), any more than I have a problem with any of the other supplements. Steroids are somewhat demonized beyond good sense. There are dangers in using them, but the risks attributed to them are way overblown.

It's almost like the mania surrounding aspertame, where people started attributing a range of side effects to its use that no one drug could possibly be responsible for. Lyle Alzado says he's "convinced" that steroids led to his brain cancer. But there's no evidence that steroids cause brain cancer. Doesn't matter, it's accepted as fact.

Stuff like that bugs me. The public just swallows that stuff up and it gets swept under the rug when more investigation is in order.

[Doc Martin]

Originally Posted by Chris D

You can't be advocating steroids for still growing bodies, Doc.

I was speaking (with tongue firmly placed in cheek) in terms of the professional athlete. Did you ask yourself, “Where is Doc Martin serious and where is he breaking chops"?

Originally Posted by Chris D

How do I explain this to the kid?

Ah yes, the joys of parenthood, I remember my daughter asking some complicated questions. Wait a minutes; she still does at Twenty-three years of age!

Tell him the truth

Using steroids can cause liver tumors and cancer, jaundice (yellowish pigmentation of skin, tissues, and body fluids), fluid retention, high blood pressure, increases in LDL (bad cholesterol), and decreases in HDL (good cholesterol). Other side effects include kidney tumors, severe acne, and trembling. Tell him about the gender-specific side effects:
For men — shrinking of the testicles, reduced sperm count, infertility, baldness, development of breasts, increased risk for prostate cancer.
For women — growth of facial hair, male-pattern baldness, changes in or cessation of the menstrual cycle, enlargement of the clitoris, deepened voice.
For adolescents like your son — growth halted prematurely through premature skeletal maturation and accelerated puberty changes. This means that adolescents risk remaining short for the remainder of their lives if they take anabolic steroids before the typical adolescent growth spurt.

People who inject anabolic steroids run the added risk of contracting or transmitting HIV/AIDS or hepatitis, which causes serious damage to the liver.

And then there are the psychiatric side effects. Things like extreme mood swings also, including manic-like symptoms leading to violence. Depression often is seen when the drugs are stopped and may contribute to dependence on anabolic steroids. Oh yes, lets not forget paranoid jealousy, extreme irritability, delusions, and impaired judgment stemming from feelings of invincibility.

Larry Nagel: Nice post

[Chris D]

Yes. I plan on telling him the truth. He won't be able to process it all now, but we'll start with "he cheated using some things that are bad for your body."

I knew your tongue was in cheek, Doc, but I had to make my point.

[Enforcer]

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Chris D

Yes. I plan on telling him the truth. He won't be able to process it all now, but we'll start with "he cheated using some things that are bad for your body." And then we'll move on to, "If he's not wearing a White Sox uniform, he's probably a really bad person who does bad things."

[clinthopson]

They are sure picking on that sweet, lovable guy.

[steve(thelil)]

Before Bonds develops brain cancer, I hope it's OK to say that I blame Stallone.