Ankiel HGH

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain it is unethical for a doctor to prescribe steroids or HGH for this purpose, even if it isn't illegal (which it may also be).


[/ QUOTE ]

It's illegal im several jurisdictions. BUT...it's illegal for the doctor.

The poor guy taking the stuff is just "doing what the doctor told him."

Christ man, my doctor could give me a bottle of batpiss and I'd drink it without question if he told me it would make the ass itching stop.

And I'd drink it like nobody's business if it helped me hit homeruns, especially if I were on the verge of getting $2 million a year, or $86 a week riding a double-A bus.

Which reminds me, when's your projected graduation from med school? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


BTW....didn't you notice the first guy outed in the Signature Pharmacy investigation was a Pittsburgh Steelers team physician?

Of course, he "never distributed any to players". But he is rumored to have purchased enough HGH on his personal credit card to supply "several dozen people".

He said he gave it to patients at his clinic, but never...never...ever to players.

And no evidence exists otherwise, so it kinda went away.

Harrison and Ankiel had a paper trail, obv, but they aren't even the targets of the investigation.....they are just the eye candy to market the news rags....undoubtedly a disappointment for SI that the names don't include Bonds....

More than 22 indictments went out, and they aren't targeting the players....they can't...they are going to be putting alot of doctors in jail though.

Ankiel and Harrison's docs will most likely end up in the clink.

[ QUOTE ]

Even prescribing them for a quasi-legit use while knowing that the patient is likely using them for illicit use is very bad. I really hope there aren't scores of doctors out there supporting this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone has a price, no matter what they say or how high it may be, everyone has a price.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I care about PEDs, I don't care at all about angry black men breaking records.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you must have a major problem with the NFL, right?

And as for baseball, I suppose you have a grudge against the guys who failed tests, and not so much against the guys who didn't?

Amirite?

Since you really care, you could probably name at least 8 of the MLB players suspended for steroid use without looking it up, right? (honor system!)

And Bonds smacking #756 didn't drive you to seething hatred?

Cool.

I'm with you bro, let's save the children together....one failed drug test at a time.

First things first, we need to get the focus on the guys actually using PED's, instead of all the attention on one single guy who never failed a test.

Right?

Show me you really care here, let's save the children and boycott the NFL altogether.

And that Roger Clemens fella too, big ol'steroid user.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with anyone using in any sport I care about, MLB, NFL, whatever.

You need to quit assuming that everything is about Bonds. It might be to some people, it definitely seems to be to you. The fact that the media devotes more time and energy to Bonds than Shawne Merriman isn't fair, but it doesn't mean that I as a fan don't care about steroids in the NFL.

I'm not boycotting the NFL, and I'm not boycotting any other sport over it.

What does naming the nobodies that have been caught in MLB have to do with anything?

Your arguments are getting very weak, but I guess that is to be expected when you are trying to tell me what I care about and why I care about it.

[metsandfinsfan]

why doesnt redbean have a custom title yet?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to quit assuming that everything is about Bonds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that is to be expected when you are trying to tell me what I care about and why I care about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that I didn't.


[ QUOTE ]
Your arguments are getting very weak...

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, since you are making them for me, attributing them to me, and then refuting them....despite me not actually making them.

I think we should name your strawman "Sam"...."Sam The Strawman". Has a nice ring to it.

And just so there is not doubt:
1. I do not assume "everything" is about Bonds.
2. I am trying to tell you what you care about or why you care about it.

Seriously dude, I generalized that "no one" cares about PED's.....which you took in the absolute literal and rushed into the thread to proclaim that YOU cared, and thus, because you are at least one person, thus I was wrong.

My deepest apologies for employing the use of a generalized colloquialism, without regard to the implications of it being taken in the absolute literal sense by someone on the interweb.

I'm doubly sorry that it made you feel the need to construct a strawman and then attribute statements or assertions on my behalf for the sake of attempting to "weaken" my arguments.....despite them not even being mine.

How's this instead: The vast majority of people don't care about steroids, they only care about hating Barry Bonds. You aren't one of them, at least as far as you say.

Now, have a nice day! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jmill2511]

[ QUOTE ]
How's this instead: The vast majority of people don't care about steroids, they only care about hating Barry Bonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, almost everyone I know echoes this sentiment. I'm one of the very few Bonds fans in Atlanta, and whenever I ask anyone if it would matter if their favorite NFL players were using steroids the most popular answer is no and it's not close.

Interestingly enough, when I ask the same people why they hate Bonds they respond " Because he's a cheater and he disgraces the game".

Behave like we want you to or you're guilty until proven innocent, seems rational to me.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Behave like we want you to or you're guilty until proven innocent, seems rational to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypocrisy by some of the major media sportswriters is amazing.

Here's two excerpts from John Donovan, a senior baseball writer for SI....one on Ankiel and one on Bonds:

<u>Donovan, Aug 8th, 2007, on Bonds alleged use of PED's from 1999-2003, before to the implementation of the MLB PED policy:</u>
At worst, Bonds has blatantly worked around and above the game's current drug policy and ignored the spirit and intent of baseball's rules against performance-enhancing drugs when they weren't enforceable. At worst, he took the drugs even though he knew he shouldn't, tried to hide that fact and cheated his way to this record.


<u>Donovan, Sept 7th, 2007,(one month later) on Ankiel's admitted use of PED's during 2004, after the implementation of the MLB PED policy.</u>
Remember, when Ankiel reportedly received the HGH in 2004, he was getting it completely legally. From a doctor. With a prescription. Remember, too, that it wasn't against baseball rules at the time. HGH wasn't banned by baseball until 2005.


Yikes. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[FlyWf]

From Wojciechowski's NFL preview column(who is a big Bonds hater):

"[Rodney Harrison]'ll miss one-quarter of the regular season. Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, who … argh, never mind."

If you're like me, you're frothing in rage right now, but it gets better:

"
I picked him in 2006, I'll pick him again in 2007: Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman will be the NFL Defensive Player of the Year. And unless he suffers a serious injury, I'm already picking him for 2008."

ashdbashdshavfhasndkasvdlkj32914yiaoshagdas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
From Wojciechowski's NFL preview column(who is a big Bonds hater):

"[Rodney Harrison]'ll miss one-quarter of the regular season. Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, who … argh, never mind."

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody let Gene know that Rodney Harrison violated his league's PED policy, but Barry Bonds has never violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Asked and answered a few posts back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[ QUOTE ]
But just in case you're just now returning from deep space orbit, a few guys wrote a book a few years back called 'Game of Shadows', about a guy who hits a baseball for a living, and you can find all the info you want about this and other unsubstantiated allegations in their book and numerous Chron articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostility? I am looking for a citation for your claim that Dr. Ting performed blood testing on Bonds for steroids and that this blood testing was brought before the grand jury. I don't recall this from the book, perhaps some one can give me a page citation. I am not claiming its untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, Bonds testified to the BALCO grand jury that he didn't trust MLB, he didn't trust the team doctors, and at the implementation of the drug policy in 2003, he had test samples run independently for his own information, including both blood and urine samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with my question, which was specifically in regards to the blood testing performed by Dr. Ting. You wrote above:

[ QUOTE ]
According to the prosecution's own case, Bonds allegedly had Ting, among other physicians, routinely perform "audits" on his samples to see if they could detect his alleged use of steroids, in anticipation of being able to beat real tests.

This evidence was brought before the GJ, Ting was called to testify by the prosecution....and suddenly the details and results of his testimony were conviently not released by the authors of GoS despite being in their possession....at the same time the GJ decides that there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so confused. Dr. Ting allegedly performed blood testing for steroids using known testing protocols to see if the undetectable stuff Bonds was allegedly taking could be detected?

What relevance does this have, assuming its true, other than to prove Bonds wasn't taking an illegal substance in the relevant time period prior to the test that could be detected by the particular blood test in question?

-----

BTW, you seem to be misrepresenting the evidentiary burden in and the purpose of grand jury proceedings, which is for the prosecutor to present his/her evidence (with no evidence from the defendant or cross examination by the defendant's attorney) to determine whether the prosecutor has enough evidence to establish probable cause for an indictment.

You also seem to be losing focus on what the grand jury was was investigating in regards to Bonds (which was not whether Bonds used steroids, but whether he perjured himself).
That no indictment has come down does not exculpate Bonds form these charges, nor does it mean he didn't take steroids/PEDS.

----------------
I agree there is no conclusive proof he took illegal drugs or violated the MLB CBA.
I agree the media is wrong, and Bonds has been unnecessarily, unjustly, and erroneously vilified.

But that does not mean you doing the same in support of Bonds is right. You seem to have headed down that same path. For example, you wrote this:

[ QUOTE ]

Excerpt:
[ QUOTE ]

U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan had said he had postponed his decision on whether to seek an indictment of Bonds "in light of some recent developments", and the receipt of the medical records was apparently one of those developments.

The records were believed to include information about three operations Bonds had last season to treat his right knee, as well as a serious elbow injury that required surgery in 1999.
(Source: Boston Herald, article no longer available online.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how that works....you can get wall-to-wall free villification of Bonds on any sports media network....but if you want to read the rarely seen blurb about the GJ being dismissed "in light of recent developments" , you have to pay the Boston Herald a fee to read it in their archives.

And this new third sitting of the grand jury is nothing more than a ruse to allow them to imprison Greg for contempt in hopes they crack him.....as evidenced by the failure of anyone reportedly being called to testify before them. No one is coming in or out of the courtroom to testify...but Greg is jailed for contempt for the duration of their session.

Thanks to the medical evidence, it appears the only chance to show any evidence of Bonds steroid use is if Greg Anderson cracks and testifies to that in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What medical evidence are you referring to? You seem to imply the medical evidence was exculpatory, as opposed to simply not establishing that Bonds knowingly took steroids, and thus not establishing Bonds perjured himself.

The grand jury was not dismissed "in light of recent developments", its term expired.

I agree a third grand jury is a joke and its obvious it was to pressure Anderson.

-----------------------------------

You also wrote this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGTRK3TT71.DTL

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes, it's uncanny at how the two authors of GoS spun the exact same story as presented in the Boston Herald, except in an entirely different light.

Damage control much?

They surely don't want anyone to catch on that possible exculpatory medical evidence shutting down a grand jury investigation could make the unfounded assertions in their biased book look real bad. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The SF Chronicle link contains this quote,

[ QUOTE ]
The following day, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan took the unusual step of publicly stating that his office was still pursuing an "ongoing steroid-related investigation" even though the term of the grand jury that had been investigating the case was expiring.

Ryan said he had postponed his decision on whether to seek an indictment "in light of some recent developments." The delivery of Bonds' medical records was among the developments, according to the sources, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the grand jury perjury probe.

It's unclear what relevance Bonds' medical records have to the perjury investigation. However, they are believed to include information about the three surgeries Bonds underwent last season to treat his right knee, as well as a serious elbow injury that required surgery in 1999. One witness has testified Bonds that told her he needed the elbow surgery because of the effects of steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this spinning the Herald story in a different light? It appears to contain the exact same information as the Boston Herald quote from above, but also includes additional factual information, such as the facts that the Grand Jury's term was expiring and the unclear link between Bonds' medical records and the perjury investigation.

U.S. attorney was postponing requesting an indictment because he hadn't presented enough evidence to the grand jury to support an indictment. The "recent developments" seem to be the failure to present probable cause for an perjury indictment against Bonds prior to the expiration of the Grand Jury's term.

That the U.S. attorney was wrong and expected certain evidence to be incriminating puts egg in his face, which is deserved because the whole perjury investigation is a joke, certainly does not mean or even suggest there was exculpatory medical evidence.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Why the hostility? I am looking for a citation for your claim that Dr. Ting performed blood testing on Bonds for steroids and that this blood testing was brought before the grand jury. I don't recall this from the book, perhaps some one can give me a page citation. I am not claiming its untrue.


[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies if you mistook my reply as 'hostility'. I assumed maybe you were completely unaware of anything related to the Bonds situation based on the question you had asked, and that it had already been answered twice, with reference to an article given previously that mentioned it.


[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Ting allegedly performed blood testing for steroids using known testing protocols to see if the undetectable stuff Bonds was allegedly taking could be detected?

What relevance does this have, assuming its true, other than to prove Bonds wasn't taking an illegal substance in the relevant time period prior to the test that could be detected by the particular blood test in question?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what relevance or sense it makes....ask the DA....they are the one's alleging it. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Maybe that's why they are having a hard time getting an indictment.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, you seem to be misrepresenting the evidentiary burden in and the purpose of grand jury proceedings, which is for the prosecutor to present his/her evidence (with no evidence from the defendant or cross examination by the defendant's attorney) to determine whether the prosecutor has enough evidence to establish probable cause for an indictment.


[/ QUOTE ]

How am I misrepresting the evidentiary burden of the GJ? I think everyone here is bright enough to realize how a GJ works, and I am certainly not trying to misrepresent otherwise.

In fact, I've said several times that the defense has not yet been given a chance to present their side, either in the court of public opinion due to the seal, nor in the courtroom, due to the lack of evidence to go to trial.


[ QUOTE ]

You also seem to be losing focus on what the grand jury was was investigating in regards to Bonds (which was not whether Bonds used steroids, but whether he perjured himself).


[/ QUOTE ]

Former Federal prosecutor Keith Ryan: "Central to our perjury investigation was the ability to prove that Mr. Bonds knowingly used steroids."


[ QUOTE ]
That no indictment has come down does not exculpate Bonds form these charges, nor does it mean he didn't take steroids/PEDS.


[/ QUOTE ]

What charges? He hasn't been charged!

As for meaning he didn't take PED/steroids....I realize that, just as the ongoing investigation and seating Grand jury doesn't mean that he did either.......in fact, the absence of proof in the affirmative outweighs the inability to disprove a negative.

[ QUOTE ]

But that does not mean you doing the same in support of Bonds is right. You seem to have headed down that same path.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I am headed down the same path as the folks who are villifying Bonds?

Um...ok.



[ QUOTE ]
You seem to imply the medical evidence was exculpatory, as opposed to simply not establishing that Bonds knowingly took steroids, and thus not establishing Bonds perjured himself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Before making assumptions, please go back and carefully read the post where I said "we don't know whether this evidence is exculpatory or just inconclusive, but either way it would be best to reserve judgement on Bonds until all the evidence is known."

I never implied that it was exculpatory, and have said several times that it could either be inconclusive or exculpatory......either way, the fact is we just don't know until it is unsealed....and it is reckless to make ANY judgement on it either way.

[ QUOTE ]
The grand jury was not dismissed "in light of recent developments", its term expired.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the DA's quote, not mine. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And the GJ was expected to issue and indictment, but "in light of recent developments", ie...the medical evidence....they chose not to indict, and the term expired.....as opposed to issuing an indictment.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree a third grand jury is a joke and its obvious it was to pressure Anderson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

----

[ QUOTE ]

How is this spinning the Herald story in a different light? It appears to contain the exact same information as the Boston Herald quote from above, but also includes additional factual information, such as the facts that the Grand Jury's term was expiring and the unclear link between Bonds' medical records and the perjury investigation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the first paragraph of each story.

The Chronicle spins it as "GJ term expires, Bonds medical records into evidence, DA says investigation will continue."

The Herald spins it as "GJ was set to indict. Bonds medical evidence presented. GJ failed to indict. DA says new evidence sheds a new light on things."

The facts were the same, of course, but they were set amidst a much different tone.


[ QUOTE ]

That the U.S. attorney was wrong and expected certain evidence to be incriminating puts egg in his face, which is deserved because the whole perjury investigation is a joke, certainly does not mean or even suggest there was exculpatory medical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was exculpatory. I readily said it could have been either inconclusive or even possibly exculpatory.

It's also possible that the Bonds defense has exculpatory evidence that they haven't had a chance to present.

My entire point is that we don't know because the evidence hasn't all been laid out yet, and a rush to judgement without knowing all the facts is reckless and unfair.

The media has cited an "overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence" presented in the GoS book and GJ testimony, despite the fact being that the GJ itself has failed to find enough evidence to proceed to trial, or that Pulitzer deemed the GoS authors work to be "uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, and unable to be believed as fact."