Manny being Manny? Ramirez suspended 50 games for violating MLB's performance enhancing drug policy
9 months ago
HighLeveragePerformer
34 comments
0 recs |
Comments
ok
that’ll distract people enough to sneak A-Rod back into the Yankee lineup.
by AronV on May 7, 2009 11:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it will be interesting to see how people react to manny vs. how people destroyed a-rod for drug use
by HighLeveragePerformer on May 7, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it does seem different.
It’s not steroids. it’s not necessarily performance enhancing. maybe it’s some kind of behavioral/psych medication. on some of those type meds, you have to get MLB approval before you can use them, even if it is prescribed.
by clack on May 7, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
having said that, though...
I do think the media went overboard on the A-Rod stuff.
by clack on May 7, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lots of crazy rumors out there...
maybe we will know more when Manny has a press conference this afternoon. Will Carroll is reporting that this violation falls under the “other” category in the drug policy, whereby the commissioner can suspend at his discretion. Carroll thinks it fits the profiles of a suspension without a positive drug test.
Based on what has been said, it could be a prescription of a banned substance for a medical condition, but that Manny failed to get a therapeutic waiver from MLB.
Yahoo has the rumor (this sound pretty crazy) that it is a drug (not Viagra or the like) prescribed for a sexual dysfunction.
by clack on May 7, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
could be
he certainly screwed over the Dodgers
by HighLeveragePerformer on May 7, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$8,000,000 Presecriptiojn
Manny loses his salary while on suspension.
His not playing will cost the Dodgers wins.
I hope Manny’s story is correct and this was an inadvertent ($8,000,000 ) oversight.
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on May 7, 2009 12:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i knew it, i knew it
hair like that doesn’t just grow naturally
by AronV on May 7, 2009 1:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here is the Yahoo link...
reporting it as a drug for enhancement of sexual performance.
by clack on May 7, 2009 1:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Aw, that's kind of unfair to suspend a guy...
because he can’t get his dong working.
by entropic soul on May 7, 2009 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The ESPN article
is claiming that it’s something called HCG (another damn acronym), a fertility drug for women, which supposedly athletes have been known to use when coming off of a cycle of steroids, because it increases the production of natural testosterone. I could see how that might be construed or spun as a sexual performance medication, but ESPN is making it sound like that’s just cause for suspiscion of steroid use beyond this positive test. They compared it to substances used by Bonds, Giambi, and other BALCO clients.
by littlevisigoth on May 7, 2009 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
from wikipedia
“A controversial usage of hCG is as an adjunct to the British endocrinologist Dr. A.T.W. Simeons’ ultra-low-calorie weight-loss diet”
in a section which is marked with the caution “not relying on any references or sources”, wikipedia also has this use listed:
As such, hCG is commonly used during and after steroid cycles to maintain and restore testicular size as well as endogenous testosterone production.
Take this for what it’s worth.
by clack on May 7, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not touching that one
but one could see how that would be “proof” that he’s on something that shrinks that area.
by AronV on May 7, 2009 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
queue the misplaced moral outrage!

Sure, there’s no proof that steroids do anything to power statistics. But that’s not going to stop the nation’s media from getting all pissed off over nothing!
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 3:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
are you implying
that you don’t care if players are using steroids?
on the scale of things worth being morally outraged about, professional baseball players using steroids is pretty low on the list for me, but i still think cheaters should be shunned. if you’re point is just that the media (ESPN, talk radio, yada yada) is going to give this more ink and breath than it’s worth, than I’m with you. if you’re saying that you don’t care if players are using steroids, than i’m not.
just checking.
by littlevisigoth on May 7, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, I'm not implying that
I’m outright saying it. I don’t care. I don’t care if Manny Ramirez took boatloads of steroids, nor do I care if Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, or Craig Counsel did. Because:
1) There’s no proof they do anything significant for baseball players, and we have a poor understanding of what steroids do, anyways.
2) I don’t see how, rationally, one can support other methods of performance enhancement, but have a hangup about PEDs.
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just curious...
What kind of “proof” would be sufficient? How would we go about getting this?
It certainly makes it easier to build muscle mass, right? You recover more quickly from weight training. …so…
by Xan on May 7, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to see
really big power spikes across a long period of time, combined with clear evidence of steroid abuse. And – this is the key – it has to be unattributable to park effects and the general trend in baseball towards better power numbers. That’s what makes proving anything so difficult, because power numbers spike so frequently, anyways, and there has been a league-wide trend towards bigger numbers. If that’s because of steroids, then anything will be difficult to prove, but, if not, then it shouldn’t be.
Interestingly, I’ve read one guy who claims that adjusted power stats show a general decrease in power over the last generation.
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
for me, that's all beside the point
although i disagree with you, even if you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that PED’s do NOTHING to improve performance, it’s as much against the rules for potential detrimental health effects as anything else. if they really do nothing, that’s even more reason to prevent these kids you claim are stupid and impressionable from putting things in their body that will both mess around with their natural biological state and not even help them get better and make more money.
and beyond that, my original contention, that there are smarter people with more information that get paid good money to make rules and decisions that are “in the best interest of the sport” that say these things shouldn’t be used, and that these guys continue to say to us all, “nope, i know better than you and your rules don’t apply to me” is enough for me to frown up them when they get caught.
by littlevisigoth on May 7, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's fine
i’m not 100% sure that PED’s really help players perform at a higher level either, but they certainly seem convinced, otherwise they wouldn’t risk their careers and good names to do it.
bottom line is, rules are rules, and it rubs me the wrong way when people think they are above the rules. maybe i’m just anal that way.
i certainly don’t hold your opinion against you.
by littlevisigoth on May 7, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there clearly is intent to cheat
and that’s an issue, albeit a lesser one. That bothers me, too, but not to the same extent.
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow talk about naive
then explain why players would take steroids if they didn’t even know what affect they have? You can’t just look at the numbers either. They help you recover from injuries faster, let you play a high level longer. If that isn’t gaining an illegal competitive advantage, I don’t know what is.
by goingforthecorner on May 7, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
then explain why players would take steroids if they didn’t even know what affect they have?
Because they’re stupid. Ballplayers believe a lot of wrong things – fastballs don’t really “rise,” and groundballs with topspin don’t speed up when they hit turf. They could be just as wrong about steroids.
They help you recover from injuries faster, let you play a high level longer.
They might help you do that. But if they do, why should we deny athletes medicine that would help them recover from their injuries? Should we ban Tommy John surgery, too?
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
Wow talk about naive
C’mon, GFTC, we had such a nice run where it wasn’t personal.
by Only_A_Lad on May 7, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that players are dumb enough to think a lot of things enhance performance
without any proof.
Roger Clemens reportedly rubbed hot linament on his private parts before he pitched because he thought it improved his peformance. Many players probably thought HGH would improve their performance. However, all of the scientific evidence indicates that it has no affect on performance.
by clack on May 7, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants' Bochy says the Dodgers are still powerful without Manny...
"That’s a talented ball club there," Bochy said. "You’ve got a player like Juan Pierre who can replace him. That’s a good player."
by clack on May 7, 2009 4:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
wow
i sure hope that was a joke, cause that’s what i’m taking it as.
by littlevisigoth on May 7, 2009 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the funniest part of the joke...
is that I think Bochy was serious.
by clack on May 7, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs






















