A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Decent article by SI's Cliff Corcoran.

In fact, glancing back at those road rates above, there's a superficial appearance of a power decline beginning, not with his first "clean" season in New York in 2004, but with his arrival in Texas in 2001, which is when Rodriguez claimed he started using performance-enhancers. That decline may be superficial in the above numbers, but in reality it ran much deeper, as I first reported in an analysis I did of Rodriguez's career trends for Bronx Banter following the 2004 season. That piece centered on what I referred to as, "a minor, but still unsettling downward trend in Rodriguez's offensive numbers" that "began with Alex's first season in Texas in 2001, but was disguised by his move from the pitcher-friendly Safeco Park ... to the [hitter-friendly] Ballpark in Arlington."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cliff_corcoran/02/13/corcoran.arod/index.html

There is on-going debate amongst writers it seems (notably Keith Law of ESPN) on the effects of steroids on performance.

Obviously, everyone brings up Bonds and his increase in production, yet Law does bring up a valid argument showing that other players have had peak years. He also points out that Bonds had one extreme peak year in 2001 when he broke the homerun record. If he was juicing then and the following years, why did he not continue to produce at such an alarming rate? Was he taking super-steroids in 2001 and then started taking regular steroids after? He questions that.

I like to look at both arguments and I think there's a good one here by some writers. There is no statistical evidence supporting steroids as a performance enhancer. It's mostly just believed to enhance performance. The great players that have been proven to use steroids were always very talented players. Did steroids make them that good if they were already good players? And if steroids do enhance performance, why do the lesser known players (those minor leaguers that were caught for example) not put up great offensive numbers in the minor leagues?

Is it all just hogwash. A false belief heightened by the dangers of steroid use?

[wwharton]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I don't disagree, but they'll need to be leaked... they can't be officially released. Personally, I don't think they'll all come out... only the ones that people may care about.

this was in response to twizdiddarkangelman

[wwharton]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Decent article by SI's Cliff Corcoran.

In fact, glancing back at those road rates above, there's a superficial appearance of a power decline beginning, not with his first "clean" season in New York in 2004, but with his arrival in Texas in 2001, which is when Rodriguez claimed he started using performance-enhancers. That decline may be superficial in the above numbers, but in reality it ran much deeper, as I first reported in an analysis I did of Rodriguez's career trends for Bronx Banter following the 2004 season. That piece centered on what I referred to as, "a minor, but still unsettling downward trend in Rodriguez's offensive numbers" that "began with Alex's first season in Texas in 2001, but was disguised by his move from the pitcher-friendly Safeco Park ... to the [hitter-friendly] Ballpark in Arlington."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cliff_corcoran/02/13/corcoran.arod/index.html

There is on-going debate amongst writers it seems (notably Keith Law of ESPN) on the effects of steroids on performance.

Obviously, everyone brings up Bonds and his increase in production, yet Law does bring up a valid argument showing that other players have had peak years. He also points out that Bonds had one extreme peak year in 2001 when he broke the homerun record. If he was juicing then and the following years, why did he not continue to produce at such an alarming rate? Was he taking super-steroids in 2001 and then started taking regular steroids after? He questions that.

I like to look at both arguments and I think there's a good one here by some writers. There is no statistical evidence supporting steroids as a performance enhancer. It's mostly just believed to enhance performance. The great players that have been proven to use steroids were always very talented players. Did steroids make them that good if they were already good players? And if steroids do enhance performance, why do the lesser known players (those minor leaguers that were caught for example) not put up great offensive numbers in the minor leagues?

Is it all just hogwash. A false belief heightened by the dangers of steroid use?

That is interesting. I think, without looking into it, the obvious points I would make would be how productive players like Bonds and Clemens were able to be at late stages in their career. And somebody would have to explain Brady Anderson's 50 HR season too, lol.

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I think that's the point.

Brady Anderson, much like a Luis Gonzalez, could have had an abnormal peak season.

It has happened historically in sports.

Bonds definitely continued to produce at a high rate late into his career, but Hank Aaron also hit 40 homeruns at the age of 40. Why is his performance late in his career (the same years Bonds produced) viewed as merely amazing, but Bonds is blamed directly on steroids?

I get it that Bonds used steroids. But, if other players have performed at a high level late in their careers, why couldn't Bonds? Isn't it possible that if Aaron's wasn't a result of steroids, then maybe Bonds's wasn't either?

Instead, maybe steroids had nothing to do with it.

[wwharton]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Honestly, I just say it raises an eyebrow. I don't know what Hank was taking. Everybody focuses on steroids but there are plenty of PEDs and some are legal and completely accepted. Some that are now banned used to be legal and completely accepted. That's why all the steroids talk and how it taints the record books is laughable to me. Feel free to continue the witch hunt on the players that lied... especially those that lied in front of Congress. But other than that, it's business as usual.

We're pretty much on the same page. I'd just think more in terms of questioning how much of an effect steroids have over other things that players take today and have taken over the years. Nobody cared about creatine until someone died if I'm not mistaken. The outrage around the banned substances is about health... no idea why it all of a sudden gets linked to records.

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

The outrage around the banned substances is about health... no idea why it all of a sudden gets linked to records.

That's a good point. Steroids were banned for their health issues. I don't know all of the history, but for some reason, people started associating it with performance. It's probably because it made people bigger. Bigger players were assumed to be better players. Not sure if that was the original mentality, but I wouldn't be surprised.

There are still no scientific connections to steroids and performance enhancement.

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

There are still no scientific connections to steroids and performance enhancement.

I'm not sure how you would prove the connection. Obviously, correlation doesn't mean causation but extreme statistical outliers when combined with the suspicion of steroid use does seem to me to be compelling enough to assume an enhancement in performance. Especially since there are common sense reasons why it would enhance performance (i.e. stronger muscles allow you to swing faster, faster recovery time for pitchers = more strength = faster pitches, etc etc).

But I'm sure Bret Boone suddenly just happened to become one of the best hitters in baseball in 2001, or Bonds became the best hitter of all-time when he should have been declining, or Clemens also defying age, etc etc

What type of proof are you looking for?

[WazzuRC]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Brady Anderson, much like a Luis Gonzalez, could have had an abnormal peak season.

Yeah...Brady Anderson didn't use 'roids .

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Yeah...Brady Anderson didn't use 'roids

How people didn't figure this stuff out earlier is beyond me.

[Moses Shuttlesworth]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

This dude is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvP4p94pv8&feature=channel_page

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

When did I say Brady Anderson didn't use steroids? People are not reading the lines. You're just seeing an argument and thinking that I'm completely disregarding what's out there. I'm simply demonstrating that there are other possibilities. Yet, it figures that presenting another argument or possibility is always out of the question in OS, because people don't know how to actually read what's being said or since it differs from their own opinion they assume it's an attack.

I present one question. When do steroids stop working? Why did Brady Anderson have one amazing season and never another one? Did the steroids just stop working the next season? Did he just suddenly lose all of that extra muscle?

You want to say there's proof, yet all the proof that's being presented is not complete. If a guy is using steroids then that player should be doing what everyone perceives steroids to do. How is it that I'm presenting a question and instead the response is, "Yea, but look at this one year!" How does one year demonstrate that a player was routinely using steroids, and how does it even come close to presenting a strong enough argument that steroids even helped that player perform at such a high level.

As one GM put it when power numbers suddenly jumped, "It's not like half the league suddenly sat on a needle." It's really about time people start looking at the facts and think for themselves. If Brady Anderson's performance was heightened by steroids, why did it only help him for one season?

Bret Boone had a jump in 2001, then back down in 2002, then up again in 2003, to back down in 2004. Was he just picking up a needle every other year? The man had two un-Boone like years and suddenly we're attributing that to steroids. Let's ignore the fact that his first boom year he was 32, the last year of his peak. But no one can explain 2002 to me unless they truly believe he just stopped using steroids and then started again in 2004.

And if he stopped using in 2003, why did he lose all of that supposed enhancement? I've seen him in 2003 and he was still a muscle-bound man with a lot of question marks on how he became so much bigger.

The facts show that he got bigger, but they don't prove that he became a Hall Of Famer. The numbers clearly show that he was still an inconsistent player who just had two big years in between two regular Boone years.

Brady went from 50 homeruns to 18. Did he just lose all that muscle so suddenly or is it not more possible that he just had an unusual year. He wouldn't be the first.

What type of proof are you bringing to the table?

[steelcurtain311]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

As one GM put it when power numbers suddenly jumped, "It's not like half the league suddenly sat on a needle." It's really about time people start looking at the facts and think for themselves. If Brady Anderson's performance was heightened by steroids, why did it only help him for one season?

Because maybe he was only on them for a season?

I can't believe people still try to say steroids don't help your game. It's a proven fact at this point that they do. They turn people into power MACHINES, when they never were. Barry Bonds is NOT a guy who can hit 50-70 HR's in a season. Period. He never was.

The people who invented the cream/clear said themselves that the purpose was for an undetectable performance enhancing drug. Its purpose was to increase power, batspeed, hand eye coordination, it could do all of those things, which is especially useful for aging players.

A name I never see recognized in steroid discussion is Luis Gonzalez, when his 2001 season is SO far above his career averages that it's ridiculous. He never came close to hitting those numbers at any point in his career. The guy was clearly juiced. It's things like that, that make me wonder how people question the enhancements of steroids.

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

You're asking good questions but I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is in the middle somewhere. Boone may have been going on and off of them, Anderson may have gone on them for a season and then decided it wasn't worth it the next season. Nobody is arguing these are magic pills that can turn anyone into a hall of famer, but given the statistical outliers, the motivation, the culture of the league, the ease of obtaining the drugs... then factor in obvious strength gains with some of these players and the dots start connecting.

Of course this doesn't prove anything because you can't prove something like this without more direct evidence, but in some of these cases you can make a case that is very compelling. The shame of it is having a "career year" is almost a crime at this point because of steroids.

But yes, I would bet anything that Boone, Bonds, Clemens, McGuire, Sosa, etc used steroids and had significantly better seasons because of it.

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Because maybe he was only on them for a season?

And the effects just go away a year later? I don't see how that makes any sense when you think about it.

Steroids make someone bigger, stronger. Person is bigger and stronger. Person suddenly isn't bigger and stronger anymore after one year?

When you work out, do you suddenly lose your strength if you stop after a year? You could lose some muscle mass, but you don't suddenly turn into a regular guy.

Again, I'm not saying Brady wasn't aided by steroids in 1996. I'm saying that you need to think about the other possibility. There's no way anyone can tell me that a guy will suddenly lose strength after one year.

You're making it seem like steroids is this magic drug that just makes you strong. You still need to work out to get big if you take steroids. The effects of working out shouldn't just go away because you stopped taking steroids.

I have yet to see a valid argument against this problem with steroids aiding performance.

[Misfit]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Decent article by SI's Cliff Corcoran.

In fact, glancing back at those road rates above, there's a superficial appearance of a power decline beginning, not with his first "clean" season in New York in 2004, but with his arrival in Texas in 2001, which is when Rodriguez claimed he started using performance-enhancers. That decline may be superficial in the above numbers, but in reality it ran much deeper, as I first reported in an analysis I did of Rodriguez's career trends for Bronx Banter following the 2004 season. That piece centered on what I referred to as, "a minor, but still unsettling downward trend in Rodriguez's offensive numbers" that "began with Alex's first season in Texas in 2001, but was disguised by his move from the pitcher-friendly Safeco Park ... to the [hitter-friendly] Ballpark in Arlington."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/cliff_corcoran/02/13/corcoran.arod/index.html

There is on-going debate amongst writers it seems (notably Keith Law of ESPN) on the effects of steroids on performance.

Obviously, everyone brings up Bonds and his increase in production, yet Law does bring up a valid argument showing that other players have had peak years. He also points out that Bonds had one extreme peak year in 2001 when he broke the homerun record. If he was juicing then and the following years, why did he not continue to produce at such an alarming rate? Was he taking super-steroids in 2001 and then started taking regular steroids after? He questions that.

I like to look at both arguments and I think there's a good one here by some writers. There is no statistical evidence supporting steroids as a performance enhancer. It's mostly just believed to enhance performance. The great players that have been proven to use steroids were always very talented players. Did steroids make them that good if they were already good players? And if steroids do enhance performance, why do the lesser known players (those minor leaguers that were caught for example) not put up great offensive numbers in the minor leagues?

Is it all just hogwash. A false belief heightened by the dangers of steroid use?

I think the most telling aspect of Arod's performance in his steroid years of 01 and 02 (he claimed to stop during spring training of 03) is games played. He was playing in the unforgicing heat of Texas but managed to play a full 162 games those years, after only having one year in Seattle over 148 (161 in 1998). For Arod, the recovery aspect of steroids seemed to be the greatest benefit for him. He did play in 161 in 2003 and 162 in 2005.

I think writers tend to over complicate statistics as well. Just looking at the raw data, before 2001 and after 2002 Arod's average slugging is around .575. During his two steroids years it is .623. Those two years, along with 2007, are his biggest outlier years. I think its fair to say without help he would have had two great seasons in Texas but I think writers are reaching if they feel he received no benefit at all from steroids.