rician blast

The whole PEDs issue gives new meaning to the term "Pin"stripes, no?

Especially since he had a couple of days to come up with his wording.

Right on...that's beautiful isn't it?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305 Yeah, but c'mon, he did say he was trying to get back into action quicker for the sake of the team...and it was only 2 days of his life. Love this part.... I suspected this f***er all along and posted such in the past so I was neither surprised at his name being on the list, nor did I really care, I figure he's doing what, at minimum, 50% of MLB players were doing. Now, with this "confession"? I think he's a dishonest f***ing *******. Does anyone really believe that pile of s***?

The link below is to an article written but some clown named Vito Forlenza, sports Editor for Comcast.net. What a douche. http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/blog/article?message.uid=1045496 "And the Red Sox weren’t even mildly interested in landing those players or anyone else available this offseason who showed up in the report. A combination of coincidence and smart business decisions? Or a blend of inside information and protection of the club’s image? Sadly, we’ll never know."

I'm of the mind that this PED issue has been around longer than typically noted, is rampant in major sports and is likely to remain a problem going forward. During college I was working at a World Gym in Connecticut back in the mid-80's. Typical gym of that day, patronized by a combination of meatheads, HS athletes, professionals, blue collar workers, older folks, etc. I was there maybe 3 months and had gotten to know just about everyone in the place. I can still remember the first time I was approached by two meatheads asking if I could get them some "s***," as they used to call it. No, I have no clue, I said. In a casual conversation with one of my co-workers I mentioned this and learned that this was far from unusual..that he would get asked constantly. Well, as time went on and members got more and more comfortable with my buddy and I, the requests came more frequently. So as not to implicate myself, let's just say that I heard that my co-worker could not resist the urge to delve into what looked to be a relatively lucrative side job of dealing juice to the gym's patrons. He found that he could fairly easily get winstrol, deca durabolin, anavar, testosterone, dianabol, a few other drugs and this injectable gonadatropin stuff that was supposed to bring your nuts back to life post-cycle. And so he acquired thousands of dollars of drugs and sold them at a premium. His customers? High school football players and wrestlers. 20-something softball players. Professionals. Construction guys. 55 year old men trying to retain 30 yr old bodies. A couple of professional wrestlers, from time to time. Women, too. From there, you could watch the users grow, month-to-month, even week to week. The results were f***ing amazing. By this guys estimation he was making an extra grand a week selling stuff in a 5000 member gym. This was around 1985. In a run-of-the mill gym in bumf*** Connecticut, an Average Joe was clearing $50k in a fairly small scale operation that sold 'roids to average people. Flash forward to now, or say the last 10 years. HR records being destroyed, pitchers pitching well later in their careers, longevity increasing, the size of players dramatically increased over players of 10-20 years prior, guys hitting balls 400 feet to the opposite field with practically a one-handed swing. If in 1985, average folks and HS athletes saw the "benefits" of PEDs...and their suppliers went largely undetected...it is very easy to understand how (1) the majority of players might be drawn to PED use and (2) suppliers are available in a network that is inconspicuous due to the potential $ to be made. The Mitchell Report, IMO, is the tip of the iceberg and does not do justice to the extent of PED use...not only in terms of % of players using, but in terms of how long this problem has existed. Based on the prevalence of drug use that I observed in gyms in the mid 1980's I have to believe that PED use in the major sports preceded that. The notion that this became a factor in baseball only around 2000 is silly. While it likely began to peak in the late-90's, I think it was a consistently growing issue that began at least 15 years prior. Are we to believe that the problem is under control now? Drug testing has netted some players...so perhaps the users will subside? Not a chance. Pro athletes are comeptetive and egotistical...plus there are millions to be made based upon their performance...and they've simply switched to undetectable substances, primarily HGH. When the chemists identify a test for HGH and that test is employed by MLB, other chemists will introduce another undetectable drug and their will be suppliers willing to supply players. Meanwhile, occasionally someone in the know will talk and names will be revealed, or investigations will be conducted that reveal a paper trail that ties a player to PED use. And subsequently the user will deny the allegations, call his accuser(s) liars, etc. The problem has been around longer than anyone wants to admit, is much worse than this report illsutrates and isn't going away...possibly ever.

Agree 100%. The BALCO investigation turned up certain names. The Mitchell report, largely hinging on two team employees' testimonies, nets a bunch more players, stars and fringe players alike. Are we to believe that there's not someone supplying athletes in Chicago or KC or other cities where few, if any, players have been named? I think it is a virtual guarantee that there are networks of suppliers throughout cities in our country with ties to groups of players. Conversations such as "Hey Joe, where are you getting your stuff...can you put me in touch" have to be extremely common. Some sources are likely better at covering their own tracks, at least so far, so the majority of users have gone unidentified to date.

I stated that possibility earlier and agree...credibility is bolstered by including Sox players.

Maybe the pitcher he hit off of was on the s*** too.

I think you're exactly right.

WEEI reports a source has indicated that Pettitte will be on the list and linked to HGH use or purchase.

One could make the case that there'd be a greater chance that Sox player's are named in order to add credibility to the report. IMO, a lack of Sox players named would simply mean they didn't get caught and a bevy of Sox named would just mean a higher percentage of Sox players using got caught in this particular investigation. Mitchell has too much to lose in terms of credibility to f*** with the report.

I hear you Thump, a lot of people will be hurt or pissed. Not me. If Ortiz is on it I won't bat an eye. If Manny is on it I don't care. If I was an MLB player faced with the prospect of making millions for a bunch of years or being an also-ran, I can pretty much guarantee I'd have used what others were using...hell, ego alone would say don't let these guys outperform me by using something that I could be using too. There is simply too much money and too much fame/adulation at stake. In fact, egos being what they are, if the rate of use was not ridiculously high I'd submit that someone "clean" would have turned on these guys a long time ago out of jealousy regarding the numbers they were putting up. Players aren't so stupid that they don't realize when a guy walks into spring training, even as little as 10-15 lbs heavier but f***ing ripped, that they're using something. If it was the exception, not the rule, I have to believe that someone would have rolled. Unfortunatley the list is only going to scratch the surface in terms of who used and as such I will still suspect many players who are not on the list. Depending on how far back this goes I could see the list including any of the following: Yankees: Pettitte, Giambi, ARod, Jeter, Posada, Damon, Cano, Clemens, Mienkxxxxx, Abreu Sox: Foulke, Youk, Nomar, Nixon, Tek, Crisp, Manny, Ortiz Then you have the guys such as Luis Gonzalez, Thome, Berkman, Tejada, Juan Gon, Andrue Jones, Sosa, Jeff Kent, Pujols, Bagwell, Sexson, Edmunds, Palmiero, Sheffield, Justice, Carl Everett, Burnitz, Salmon, Troy O'Leary, Albert Belle, Delgado, Rolen, Jaret Wright, Kevin Brown, Helling, etc. etc. etc. As I've mentioned before this doesn't even touch on the issue of fringe players who might have used PEDs just to get to the bigs. Or the guys whose HR totals hit double digits only because they were using.

The real "crime" in this will be that a lot of users DON'T get named while some do. I've stated a number of times that I believe the % of players using PEDs is extremely high...at least 50%. Just because a player is not on the list will not erase my suspicions. Unfortunately I'm afraid those who used but didn't get caught are going to be erroneously vindicated.

Schill, you are right, they can pull that Jekyll and Hyde s*** pretty quickly. I don't think that they are horrible but they are not near elite. I'm still kind of waiting for that 10 game stretch where they go 2-5-3 or something.

Challenged? "I'm not convinced" doesn't seem so harsh. Kind of sounds like "maybe he will". Anyway, sorry if I offended you. Interesting word choice which perhaps illuminates your view of this forum...it isn't for light-hearted exchanges or, heaven forbid, opinion, its for argument...and winning arguments is the goal...not everyone shares the same desire, or need, to constantly prove to people they don't even know that they are right and others are wrong. I don't view any of this as "tactical" - - - for me "tactical" processes are more likely utilized in business, in school, in negotiating contracts...you know, stuff that matters. This is a Sox forum...those overtly employing "tactics" here, well, would kind of scare me. As for your dismissal of other players comments and some of the remainder of your post, you are essentially confirming that subjectivity is inherent in all of this...that we can all offer alternative interpretations to statements and even find a number of means to refute statistical measures...you know, ifs and buts and such. Maybe, ultimately, it comes down to who cares more...certain folks seem to take this stuff way, way more seriously than others...I could conjure up a guess as to why, but that would be speculation and without being able to substantiate my hypothesis I'd likely come under fire. OK, we'll go on the assumption that the above is not condescending and truly represents a sincere thought...so you are welcome.

Interesting article providing some insight to B's management. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/charlie_in_charge/page5

Hi Bill. Couple of things: Characterization of the passage "I'm not convinced that he won't improve defensively" as being a "criticism of others' points" is off base. Read correctly it is quite obviously an opinion that reflects the thought that perhaps this individual player might improve defensively. As for my previously unreferenced remarks regarding Boggs: Comments by a variety of individuals in the Sox organization: http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20050104&content_id=927388&vkey=pr_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos Boggs HOF speech, brief blurb on fielding: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121545 Sporting News article regarding Boggs fielding: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/Bugs%20and%20Cranks As I stated earlier, your analysis is a fine one, and has validity. But are all of these individuals wrong? Is there perhaps a weakness in the numbers? And does your analysis necessarily translate to Carter and prove that he can not and will not improve defensively? What is interesting here is I've made no claim about Carter's future whatsoever...just that I am not convinced that he can not improve fielding-wise. FYI, according to Baseball Prospectus: Tony Perez achieved his highest FRAR ratings in 1975, 1976 and 1977...his 11th, 12th and 13th seasons in MLB. George Scott's 4 highest FRAR seasons were seasons 9-12, at ages 29-32. Pujols, in his 6th and 7th major league seasons, has recorded his highest FRARs. I know, this is one measure, and just a few players. Does that make it The Rule? No, but it does open doors to the possibility that a player can improve his statistically measured 'D' during his MLB career. As a side-note, there are those who caution how these stats are used...just 2 quick examples: The Illusion of Range Factor http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/espn9809.htm http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2387 Do I mean to imply stats have no use? Absolutely not. I've acknowledged the usefullness of your analysis and am aware that the Bill James-types have proven their worth in organizations league wide. However, I think there is a tendency to rely on them too heavily in an effort to shoot down another's expressed opinion, and I'm not quite sure why that is the case.