The LA Times got the scoop — Manny Ramirez has been suspended for 50 games as a result of a positive test for performance enhancing substances. Updates as information breaks.
UPDATE 1: Ramirez was suspended for a “performance enhancing substance” and not a “drug of abuse.” This puts aside early rumors that Ramirez had been suspended for marijuana use.
UPDATE 2: Two sources confirm for me that Ramirez did not test positive for an anabolic steroid. What the substance was remains unclear. The press release from MLB indicates that it was not a “drug of abuse” or a “stimulant,” the other two classes of banned substances. Ramirez’s positive test came during Spring Training, which follows his story that he received the substance from a doctor this January.
UPDATE 3: Ramirez’s statement issued through the MLBPA indicates that Ramirez will not appeal his suspension and that he received the banned substance from a doctor. Ramirez was suspended under section 8.G.2 of the Joint Drug Agreement, which is “other.” In his statement, there’s no clear statement that Ramirez ever tested positive. Combined, those two facts point to a non-testable drug, but this is not confirmed. The only other known 8.G.2 suspension was Jordan Schaefer.
UPDATE 4: Give T.J. Quinn the points: He gets the scoop that the drug Ramirez was suspended for was HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin.) Simply put, it boosts testosterone.
FINAL UPDATE: Spoke with several sources with knowledge of the tests and it appears that Ramirez is both guilty of offense and of some poor judgement. His doctor checked the list, but apparently the old list — HCG was added to baseball’s banned list this off-season. That said, HCG is a big testosterone booster (up to 100% according to Millard Baker, a steroids expert) and is often used to “kick start” the body’s natural production of testosterone after a cycle of steroids.
So to summarize, Manny Ramirez has been suspended for a banned substance, one that is not a steroid, but does have some performance enhancing and steroid connections. There’s still some unanswered questions, such as the two tests that Yahoo reported, why Ramirez was prescribed the substance, and why he was suspended under 8.G.2 rather than the normal 8.B.1. Thanks to everyone that helped and to the commenters, who (mostly) kept it a smart, reasoned discussion.
It could be worse... he could still be on the Red Sox. There is now grumbling among Boston fans (unfairly, since there is no evidence to date) that Big Papi might have been using pre-2005.
agreed. papi's two best seasons came in 06 and 07 (or at least two OF his best). the only "red sox fans" i've heard suspect papi of using are really boston sports fans who don't follow baseball closely and have jumped to the (decidedly incorrect) conclusion that 95% of baseball players are juiced.
So, you're saying I should stay away from all things ESPN for a few days then? Cuz, you know, there's no way they won't over report that in any way shape or form.
Look on the bright side -- this boots "Brad Childress Hasn't Met With Favre Yet... But He Might!" off the overkill cycle. I mean, that's not even news.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
so glad my trade, in which i finally decided to trade kemp and suzuki instead of manny, went through yesterday. at least i got jay bruce, carl crawford, and k-rod for it. sigh. manny being manny.
I think your post is the most relevant one here. This isn't about us, it's about how much this will affect kids out there. Not that they'll see Manny doing it and choose to do so also (although that may be the case for some), it's that kids like jimnabby's kids will begin to hate the entire sport because of being "let down" by clowns like Manny.
That's the worst part about it all, telling your child their idol is a drug user. Jose Canseco was my favorite player growing up, so I know how it feels...
Or how about Babe Ruth, who was a serial philanderer, or Ty Cobb, who was a seething racist and all-around bad dude? Or how about Joe Tinker, who was said to be a compulsive gambler and mean as hell. Or...or...I dunno, how about Gaylord Perry, who cheated pretty much his whole career.
That evil Manny Ramirez!!!! we should run him out of the game. How dare he use PED's. He should be hung. He should be drawn and quartered. His name should be stricken from the rolls of baseball for all time. His 500+ home runs should be forgotten and all teams who have employed him should be instantly disbanded. Plus the Yankees since I hate them too even though Manny never played for them. Obviously I'm serious about this, and my tongue is not firmly planted in my cheek.
Plaschke should look in the mirror and practice this phrase: "I don't know enough about the subject to give you an interview at this time."
His tirade on ESPN (Why do I do this to myself?) was embarrassing. Full of anger and vitriol, but devoid of truth ("He's already appealed. They gave him every chance.")
My immediate guess is that he probably got caught taking a supplement sold over the counter at gnc/vitamin shoppe that was recommended to him but, unknown to him, had a banned substance in it. Same thing with JC Romero on Philly.
My immediate guess is I have a bridge to sell to you.
OK, that's over the top. But the real point is that people inclined to cheat in the first place will then be inclined to ameliorate being caught by lying about it, as saying "Well, I was hoping to not get caught" just don't sound too good. Never mind it being accurate the vast majority of the time.
If you can differentiate the few sincere excusers from the many finagling ones, well, then you're far better at that than I am.
This could be true, but a player in Manny's position should hire someone to vet all his supplements for him, to make sure they comply with the rules. He may (or may not) be morally innocent here, but if so he acted awful stupidly.
Be interesting to see Joe and others' take on here about this. Usually, part of the defense is that it wasn't technically illegal at the time, and unenforceable. Well, the rules are pretty clear now. And he pretty clearly broke them. Pretty crazy.
I know Jeff Pearlman wrote an article called "Once linked by greatness, A-Rod, Junior have gone separate ways" and argued that Griffey was literally a hero, especially when compared to A-Rod... to which I sent him:
Might want to check the trimmings on Griffey. In a clubhouse with suspected amphetamine usage (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3171167), David Segui, Glenallen Hill, and Todd Williams linked to steroids in the Mitchell Report, Ryan Franklin suspended for steroids, Bret Boone accused by Jose Canseco, and who knows what A-Rod did for how long, Griffey'd be a bit tarnished if he saw all this going on and said/did nothing.
Tarnished?? How in the world how? Supposed to turn in his teammates to management? The press?
Players are juicing around him left and right, he knows darn well people in other clubhouses competing against him are doing likewise, and he still stays clean. Sounds like medal-winning moral behavior to me.
Assuming, of course, HE doesn't flunk a test or get linked. pleaseohpleaseohpleaseno
As with Tsu, yes I've had friends who used 'roids, and I didn't turn a one of them in. Oh, I type better than he does, though. (quickdoublecheck)
Griffey accepted that people who were using illegal PEDs - with no chance of getting caught - would thereby get him out here and there, given that advantage over him. And he still stayed clean. Yep, I'll give him a baseball medal for that.
But there was a chance of getting caught. It's called the federal government declaring those kinds of substances illegal without a valid medical prescription.
I mean, come on, just because a crime happens in the woods and no one is around to see it doesn't mean it's legal, moral or ethical.
Didn't say doing 'roids was moral or illegal or et.cet. Said not doing them yourself when boyohboy there sure is temptation to and very practical reason to and lots of competitors so doing is moral and ethical behavior. And that it shouldn't count against Griffey at all that he didn't call the cops on any teammates he saw/heard about doing 'roids.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
If he is clean, I can give him credit for not using. But, if he saw it was going on, I don't give him too much credit.
The guy makes millions of dollars in a job that we pay to see, his family has a legacy in the game. He was the first proponent of wearing "42" to honor Jackie Robinson. If he saw something going wrong, he should've said something.. just as if he saw a white guy making racist comments on a black teammate, he should also report the incident.
If it's not his place, then he's not a role model and just a baseball player.
But for anyone who argues Griffey is a role model, maybe it's his place to be an example for the thousands of parents who have bought his jersey over the years for their kids so that, if the kids grow up and see something wrong happening, they don't just keep quiet about it.
It's funny how people are yelling about how this person or that person did steroids, raking them over the coals for doing so, yet those same people think it's ok to ignore responsibility or go to action when they see wrongdoing taking place.
Then again, this is baseball. And baseball has a legacy of role models that consist of sexists, racists, users and abusers. I'm just saying if you want to admire Griffey for not using, then I agree with you. But I won't idolize him if he could have done much more. Heck, I'm a Cubs fan and I'll give Frank Thomas a thumbs-up and call him a role model for being the only active player to be involved with the Mitchell report, even though prior to that, I thought he was an old, fat, DH constantly whining about his contract.
It sickens me to see people after each positive test come out and say "at least so and so is still clean". Horsesh*t.
Sorry guys, they're ALL users. Griffey, Jeter, Chipper, Nolan Ryan, Ripken and everyone else who is/was your baseball hero since the early 80's. Wake up. This is what contributes to the ongoing "breaking story" nonsense each week. I guess we'll have to go through all of them by process of elimination until we finish off your "clean" list.
Over/under on this post being below the threshold to view: 20 minutes. Seriously everyone, wake the f up.
How about Jeff Bagwell? No one ever mentions him, but he's from that era, and a HOFer too. One ranking has him around the 4th best 1b ever, all things considered.
I'm absolutely convinced that Bagwell was a user and got out while the getting was good. Gammons once fingered him on a local radio show that I was listening to.
Bagwell certainly had that steroid "look" going. Not that it means anything definitive. But if we're going to use "the company we keep" as a barometer, Ken Caminiti was his teammate for awhile....
Of all HoFers from this era, I think Frank Thomas is the one we can most confidently say was never on the stuff. Always was huge (and the only thing that grew during his career was his gut), notable complainer that others were on the stuff, suspected ringleader of the large group of White Sox players that were going to refuse to take the survey testing in an attempt to force enough positives (which their skipped tests would have counted as) to guarantee testing with penalties, and the only player to cooperate with the Mitchell investigation.
"Junior is still clean, I'll go to the grave believing that. So one HOFer from this era is safe...."
I don't disagree with the facts, but I think it's that sort of thinking that causes us such grief. The solution isn't to look for the right person to turn into a hero, the solution is to stop turning baseball players into heroes. We end up disappointing ourselves 75% of the time while passing on 95% of the blame to the deified player. We shouldn't have to tie our love of the game to the personal ethics of another human being. I thought we'd learned that after Mantle ... and Rose ... and McGwire ...
PS -- As for Gammons, go watch the phone interview ESPN.com has on their front page. I think it might actually be Scott Boras on the phone doing a really good Peter Gammons impression.
Btw do we know the timing of this drug test? Manny didn't sign until real late, after all. I wonder if maybe Clemens was signing for all those half seasons just to miss the spring training drug testing.
Maybe they should add in an extra testing period after the regular season or the playoffs end, so that there's some measure of certainty for teams signing potential free agents.
I'm only skeptical that he was knowingly taking banned substances because how in the world could he be stupid enough to take such a huge risk? He's not the sharpest tack in the toolbox, but he's not that dim, is he?
He's got his $45 million guaranteed contract in hand. It's not like he's trying to stave off being DFA'd. No good reason to be cheating at this point.
I assume he's going to lose 50 games worth of salary. What's that -- $7 million?
So, another baseball player is caught... yet football players continue to get a free pass. I will think less of Manny when the NFL/ESPN gets the hot air out of their heads and quits being so ignorant that there is a bigger problem in most other sports.
"How can anyone watch baseball anymore? It's just a bunch of cheaters roiding up to hit home runs and throw 95 mph fastballs. Hey, did you see the Steelers drafted a 6'1" 360 lb tackle who runs a 4.6 40? I'm so looking forward to the beginning of training camp."
I don't understand this attitude, which is prevalent here. Football players have been getting tested for years and the players union has been part of the driving force. There are weekly random tests.
Every year several players receive 4 game suspensions, which is 25% of the season--very similar to the 50 game suspension in MLB. Some of these are relatively high profile, too.
BP editors - one suggestion/request - could you please put the first name of the player into the title/heading of a post like this one, at least when it's a name as common to baseball as "Smith" is to everyday life. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Ramirez - Manny is obviously the biggest name, but there are lots of options. Thanks.
Being a Cubs fan, I was worried it might have been Aramis. Having Hanley in my 2 fantasy leagues. I was also worried. I wouldn't have put it past Will to post that exact headline with a story on Max or Horacio either.
We had a noon game today, so I doubt they would announce an hour before because we would have had to get somebody up to the majors, and don't even joke about us losing Hanley for 50 games. We have enough AAA hitters already.
I do like how this story played out for me. I hope we don't have many like this, but it was a wheelhouse story, good sourcing, quick updates, good discussion in the comments/Twitter ... this is how online journlism should work.
Why does Ramirez get the benefit of the doubt while people still dig into Rodriguez and Bonds, villify Palmerio and McGwire and yet have gotten past the Paul Byrds, Mike Camerons and Rick Ankiels of the world? I mean, we had federal agents seize proof of Byrd, Cameron and Ankiel and yet all the hype with Rodriguez started with a SI.com book and Bonds started with a leaked grand jury testimony.
Hey, I'm only speaking of my opinion on Ramirez... as far as I'm concerned, the treatment of Rodriguez, McGwire, Ankiel, and all the others is irrelevant to this particular person in this particular case.
My question was mostly meant rhetorically. It's ironic the people we forgive and forget, versus the others we crucify. We still don't believe Jose Canseco (self-serving as he is), who long ago claimed he was blackballed out of baseball. Heck I'm getting tempted to buy his books myself.
"
Why didn’t Ramirez get a long-term deal? Canseco asks. Why were owners gun-shy about signing arguably the game’s best hitter?
Never mind that Ramirez was asking for a mega-deal at age 36. Or that he was negotiating in a sickly economy, while weighed down by the heavy baggage of a surly reputation. Canseco will have none of it. To Canseco, the drawn-out negotiation, the lack of a long-term deal, the lack of interest all raise red flags, and so he tells the Bovard crowd that Ramirez’s “name is most likely, 90%,” on the [2003] list.
Is it a valid question? Canseco himself admits that he has no proof, and that he's just guessing, which makes him far less sure than when he claimed to have had conversations with A-Rod about 'roids
"
To be completely honest though, I get more upset with athletes getting DUIs and getting off scot-free than with some "tainted" record books. My thought is we'll never know who did what, but it's still a matter of history, so every statistic should still count.
I agree. It's ridiculous to get all worked up over players using supplements that might let them hit a spitball better, but not care when they pup people's lives in danger. Where's Joba Chamberlain's suspension?
Which didn't keep LaRussa from jumping in on the fun. Definitely a spot I'd like to see "cleaned up" if we're gonna move on to more pressing issues.
I will never understand what makes these guys get behind the wheel completely sloshed. On some level I understand the drunk that can't afford a cab after spending all his money on booze, but athletes and execs have the dough to grab a cab, no?
Will Carroll twittered..tweeted (whatever) that he was suspended under violation of 8 G. A. of the Joint Drug Agreement...which is "other" and at the commissioner's discretion. seems to indicate there may not have been a true positive test? not sure.
If it was a 'non-testable' substance - which I realize is an assumption/educated guess - then the headline and body of the LA Times story indicating that Manny 'tested positive' are incorrect?
I wonder how he could have been caught in a Spring Training test for what Will is speculating was an untestable drug. If he was caught in ST taking a substance that can't be tested, then wouldn't he have been banned to start the season? He apparently waived his right to appeal, which indicates that the discovery of PED use by MLB occurred in the past couple of days. Color me confused by the information we're receiving about all this.
Dodger Fans: If we can go 22-28 in the 50 Manny-less games (.440 baseball), we'll come out of it at 43-36. That still has to be good for first place in the NL West.
hCG can be tested for during pregnancy, in fact it's the hormone that pregnancy tests look for in women. Overproduction from uterine cells causes overflow of hCG into the urine. In men it is similar to luteinizing hormone which stimulates testosterone production.
I guess if you inject it it doesn't end up in the urine and you can't tell...? I don't know, this seems odd to me that he took hCG but it's "untestable". I hope someone with more knowledge can clear this up.
I'm sad that Manny was suspended b/c that guy can really hit. Not even just the power, but his eye, his swing and everything is so pretty. Anything he was taking may have helped his power, but he was sure fun to watch.
If you read the statement from the MLBPA, it doesn't say he tested positive. He says we was suspended by because the the Therapeutic Usage Exemption. It could very be possible that he started taking a drug before receiving approval of the exemption and the exemption was denied.
Woudln't the Dodgers have required new medical records/reports before re-signing him? Or wouldn't other teams have been given access to those records? If he did take the substance in January, is it possible that teams (including the Dodgers?) knew he had taken a banned substance?
After the whole Sosa/Bonds/McGwire situation, a lot of people said "well, at least Arod, Griffay, Pujols, Manny, etc. are clean." After the A-Rod news broke, it became "well, at least Griffey, Pujols, Manny, etc. are clean."
As frustrating as it is, we just have to accept that, innocent or guilty, we really don't who has done what or to what extent. I don't know if Pujols has ever done anything, and I'm not going to assume he has, but at the same time I'm not going to claim with confidence that he is definitely clean. I will just accept the face that I don't know. I just like watching baseball.
Schafer was suspended for 50 games, too, for using HGH. As Caroll notes, Manny is just the second suspended under this particular clause, Schafer the first.
Schafer's father told ESPN.com's Mike Fish that his son did not fail a drug test and did not purchase HGH from an online pharmacy or supplier.
"At this point he would love to comment, but under counsel's advice he can't," David Schafer told ESPN.com. "He says he loves the Braves. He wants to play his entire career with the Braves. He loves the city and the fans of Atlanta. It hurts him that he can't make a comment, but under advice he just can't make a comment right now.''
Asked how Major League Baseball determined that Schafer used HGH, Mike Teevan, MLB's manager of media relations, said, "We have non-analytic means of identifying players. He falls under that category."
Yahoo is reporting that it was a substance designed to boost sexual performance and ESPN is saying it's used to boost testosterone levels for users coming off a steroid cycle.
Color me confused, though I wonder if both statements are accurate?
it can be used as a fertility drug for men. as such, it could be used between steroid cycles to counteract some effects of the drug, like testicle size and production..
jgalt is right, but it seems pretty controversial. because alot of male obesity is attributed to estrogen dominance. so anything that ups testosterone would effect that..but of all these reasons...why is Manny taking this?
so now we're to believe that a medical doctor prescribed Ramirez a drug that boosts testosterone, both knowing who Manny is and without anyone checking MLB's banned substance list?
*LAUGH*
just tell the truth, Manny. either that or say nothing. but don't insult our intelligence with A-Roid-esque fairy half-truths that don't even pass the smell test.
Is there any reasonable chance that he was taking this for a "personal health problem" unrelated to the effects of steroid use? I really want to believe.
Btw, I find it kinda neat that BP has the scoop on what drug was used before CNNSI, especially with all the PED-books they've been writing over the last few years.
Exactly - HCG is prescribed to boost sperm counts in men. It can also be prescribed to boost sex drive. It's the hormone produced in the pituitary that stimulates the testes to produce sperm and testosterone.
I don't care for this kind of crap at all, but I'm long past the hand wringing stage.
I think there are players who are clean, but I'm not certain anymore. Knowing who is and isn't seems almost impossible at this point.
I enjoy baseball so much I'm going to be a hypocrite and just enjoy the game regardless of what these guys do. I don't trust anyone at this point, but it still is a beautiful game.
so obviously there could be a innocent(ish) explanation as well as a guilty one. the thing is, if he used this substance in some way with steroids or due to steroids...why issue the denial and the apology? you HAVE to know that everything will come out eventually. if he's guilty, it seems like it makes more sense to issue mea culpas all around, fall on your sword, and hope people are forgiving. not saying he's innocent, just that it would be stupid to keep lying.
No, we know well that Bonds used PEDs and lots of them. This "we don't know" garbage is such a waste of space and just as bad as the inane ESPN "kill manny" comments.
We keep getting new information in regards to Bonds. Last year came the first mentions of possible positive tests. Still, we do not definitely know what he did, all we could do is highly suspect based on the various forms of hearsay, leaked testimony and suggested evidence that exists. Even if we definitely know what he did, we don't know if he knew it or not. Maybe he used, he knew about it, and he lied (which I am inclined to think), but we have no definitive proof and we have not seen the evidence, only heard it. Either way, this isn't the forum to prove it.
We hypothesize that we do know, but it has not yet been proven definitively that he took PEDs, nor that he knew he was taking PEDs.
If you are sure you know, though. Please enlighten me, and clarify what "lots of them" means by detailing the name of each drug he took, how much he took, and when he took them. Show a properly conducted test that was properly preserved and maintained the chain of evidence to avoid error or tampering. If this is a difficult task for you to prove, then it shows that we do not necessarily "know" anything until the evidence against him is tested for veracity in a court of law.
So we don't know that the Black Sox threw the 1919 Series because it was never found so in a court of law?
You can know things about people without a court of law establishing it first. Including bad things. I'd say Bonds and PEDs provides a pretty good example of that.
It's pretty clear that Bonds used some drugs, and we have a pretty good idea which ones. We are utterly clueless as to when he started and stopped taking them, we have no good medical evidence and just a very slim idea of what his dosages might have been for a very short time.
We can say (with strong certainty) that Eddie Cicotte took X amount of money from X person on X date and intentionally threw a baseball game on Y date, with player confessions to back it up.
All we can say about Bonds is that he took something sometime. We have a pretty good idea of what he took and a vague idea of when he took it, but any other drugs used are unknown and his track record of usage outside of the BALCO years is anybody's guess.
And that's not the best part -- we know more about Bonds' usage than anyone else's, except perhaps Clemens. And even that must be said with the caveat that most -- but not all -- of the evidence is circumstantial.
THAT's what we mean when we say we know nothing, especially about Manny. If we condense it to a yes/no question, then it's easier to answer, but real life isn't so easily condensed, and the details and the context are often just as important as the "yes" or "no" answer.
Scotty -- Good point. I'm not saying he's not guilty -- a failed drug test is pretty good proof of that, probably the best we're going to get. I guess I should have been clearer that, separate from the binary yes/no question of did they cheat is a wealth of detail that we are usually lacking. I agree that with Manny and Palmeiro the yes/no question is pretty well answered. What we don't know is: is it a first offense, what is, are, and have been their drugs of choice, what were the dosages, where did they get them, etc. Knowing these things is important I think, to keep us from lumping habitual cheats with guys who just tried it once. It's also essential if we're ever going to sort out the statistical snarl of the steroid era.
You're right that with Manny, Palmeiro (and the other positives), we've got the answer to the biggest question. But there's still so much we don't know. And like any other unknown quantity at BP, the (ideal) solution is to fill in the gaps and put everything in context.
Some of the players confessed to being a part of the scheme. If they hadn't, then it'd be a limbo situation similar to Shoeless Joe Jackson. Here it is, almost 90 years later, and we still don't know if he allowed the bribes to affect his play. Nor is a court of law the absolute truth either. Yet, in absence of a confession, any evidence submitted has to meet certain threshholds to be admissable and submitted first-hand to the court to check its validity. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggested, but we still haven't seen these charts of drug usage, the list of people who tested positive for drugs, etc. All we've had access to is third-party information.
And, as Aaron noted, we can make a pretty good guess that Bonds took something at sometime... but we still don't know specifics and we're still waiting for there to be enough evidence (and the charges to be drafted correctly) to see a trial.
Trial (or no trial) has almost nothing to do with it. Criminal courts do not determine fact or fiction. They determine whether there is overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt regarding a crime, or there is less than such amount of admissible evidence.
If the prosecutor can show it's 60% likely that the guy did the crime, it's his job to then drop charges. Once he's certain he can't get any more evidence. If the prosecutor can darn well prove the guy's guilty as sin, but his evidence is legally inadmissible, again he sticks a fork in the case. Regardless of what he can factually show happened.
And Bonds isn't being investigated for using 'roids anyway. The court doesn't give a fig about that. It's can he be proven a perjurer as to lying about taking them.
It's accepted and established knowledge that Bonds BALCOed in PEDs by the syringe-load. Using a court case regarding perjury to argue that "we just don't know that he did much at all for any length of time at all", that's pretty weak.
Whether or not the bribes affected Jackson's play is immaterial. The fact is, he took bribes, and what's more important, he was aware that his teammates were taking bribes, so in essence he was conspiring to throw the series, whether he intentionally played badly or not. In fact, by playing as well as he did, he had to worry not only about the law, but also about the Mob. If the White Sox had won the 1919 World Series, chances are Joe Jackson would not have lived to see the 1920 season.
(Or maybe I've seen to many Hollywood boxing movies.)
We know he took bribes. I don't know if he knew his teammates were taking bribes, but for the sake of this thread of the argument, let's say he did know. Still, even with those two data points, we don't know if he contributed to throwing the series (besides not reporting the bribery scheme to MLB). If he struck out every at bat, that would be a good indication, but he didn't.
Now, at the federal level and as far as MLB is concerned, he did throw the series... but when you get down to arguments from a fan perspective on whether Jackson belongs in the Hall of Fame or not, then whether the bribes affected Jackson's play is material. The point I was trying to make is that there was some pretty good proof on Jackson, and still 90 years later, we question how involved he was. If we can gauge so little about something that happened so long ago, can we really determine to what affect PEDs had on players?
Did PEDs help Bonds? If so, how much? Did he face pitchers that used PEDs too? Or do we just ignore Bonds all together? We don't know how many players used PEDs. We don't know who used what PEDs, how long they used those PEDs for, and what the effects of those PEDs are. Do we just ignore the statistics from 1998-2002? 1998-2002? Maybe take 10% off everyone's home runs? Or 15%? From a fan's perspective, we just don't have enough information as of yet to determine what the effects of PEDs were and how to properly account for them. In addition, MLB has not suspended Bonds nor has he been tried in a court of law so we don't even know the amount of admissible evidence against him. The MLB aspect, though, is one issue and the federal aspect is another. The third aspect is, from a fan's perspective, we wonder how good Bonds really was... and without a way to know specifically what he took when, or what the effect was, we just don't know how good he was.
He's still not "innocent." As with Romero, an athlete is responsible for whatever goes in his body. Whether it was knowing or not, whether prescribed or not, if he applied for a TUE or not all factor in, but it comes down to "it goes in, we catch you, you're suspended." That's how a policy designed to eliminate drugs from the game should work.
I'm glad to subscribe to BP where most of the commentors don't go bonkers on this issue. On ESPN everyone is calling for Manny's head (and Pujols head as well... ?). Looks like it was just a stupid mistake by Manny, hardly worse than what NFL guys take or the DUIs players rack up sometimes.
ESPNs bottom line just showed a statmeent that their computer odds whatever adjusted for losing Manny for 50 games, dropping their percentage to make the playoffs from 71 to 65 (give or take).
Saw that as well. Projection was for three fewer wins as a result of the suspension, but for the Dodgers to still win 95 and finish with the NL's best record.
I have to say that my reaction to this news is colored by the way that he was introduced to Boston, which is that he was a flake and that we'd just have to deal with it. (I think it was Gammons, actually, but it was definitely whoever was the name sports guy for the Boston Globe.)
Anyway, I'm shocked that it's not marijuana. I'm shocked that there was a doctor involved. (I'm shocked that the doctor's not been sued yet.) I'm kind of shocked that he'd think to do it.
BUT, if I recall this site's take on PEDs correctly, there was an article that argued that minor leaguers, veterans going for a last contract, and soon-to-be free agents were the most likely offenders. The last two DO fit Manny, so that makes me wonder...
Oh boy, baseball seems to turn into the Tour de France... everybody denies using PEDs, but in the end most do. And get caught eventually. But still earned millions of Dollars. Next on the list? Pujols. I just hope that I am wrong.
Besides kickstarting testerone production after steroid cycle, hCG is also used to mask artificial testerone usage, by driving up natural testerone. By driving up testerone, works as weight reducer, too.
Is hCG a controlled substance at all? I'm wondering if the doc who prescribed it may have broken the law. Because if not, then, as far as all officialdom is concerned, the case is closed. Although I would hope someone in law enforcement would put Manny and the doc under a microscope to at least determine if this was an isolated incident or the tip of another Florida pharmaceutical iceberg.
I'm starting to see the wisdom of Manny declining a messy appeals process. Or is that just cynical? I honestly can't tell the difference.
Holy crap, here's the diet: injections of HCG daily (very expensive) combined with "VLCD". VLCD is a "very low calorie diet," less than 500 *per day*. Look, you eat 500 calories a day and don't lose weight, there's serious issues. The injection is set dressing, whether it works or not.
ESPN is saying he used HCG _and_ artificial testosterone. The article indicates that MLB focused on the HCG since the testosterone might have been explained away. It also appears that though he tested for higher levels of testosterone, he did not test for HCG but MLB obtained documents showing he used HCG. Thus, in effect, he was suspended because of incriminating documentation and not because of a failed test.
An excerpt from the ESPN.com story:
Ramirez's case was set off when a test in spring training revealed he had elevated levels of testosterone in his body. MLB followed up with a more comprehensive test that confirmed the testosterone had to come from an artificial source, the sources said.
While investigating, MLB obtained documents that indicated Ramirez's use of hCG, and it was those documents that formally were used to hand down the 50-game suspension. Baseball decided to suspend Ramirez for only hCG because, in the end, he would have only been suspended for just the 50 games either way. There was a chance Ramirez could have proved that the testosterone did not come from a banned substance, the MLB source said.
The hCG use, a doping expert told ESPN, would have been separate from the use of the artificial testosterone reflected by MLB's testing.
The players' association said Ramirez was suspended by the commissioner under the "just cause" provision of section 8.G.2 of the joint drug agreement. That allows players to be penalized for use, sale or distribution of banned substances, even where the agreement doesn't specify a particular penalty, such as for a positive test.
So we have a test, a restest (A/B with the more expensive, sensitive test in B), and then the non-analytical, which he accepted, after originally appealing. Same penalty, explains why 8.G.2 was invoked despite a positive test.
Great work by the investigative resources of ESPN.
I haven't seen this kind of detailed information when previous suspensions happened. Maybe Manny testing positive is a good thing since it's encouraging reporters to dig deeper into a star player and thus, show to the public how vigorous the process is...
I mean, after reading all this, it seems MLB does its due diligence and also doesn't automatically suspend people based on what could be a false positive.
I think the non-analytical "just cause" clause was either contemplated or used with Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen since their names appeared in the Mitchell Report without having tested positive for a PED.
Boras has a way of exploiting rules and loopholes. I don't think he considers many situations as "no-win" situations.
However, I could see Manny voluntarily taking a suspension. Think about it. He now has a contract that will pay him a lot of money to play over the next two years. Maybe he, like Clemens, didn't want to play a full season but still wanted to keep his hand in the game. He realizes the problems the Dodgers have had in the past with discarding contracts (Pierre, Brown, Dreifort, etc.) So, he takes a month or two off and relaxes, knowing full well he'll be a starter once his suspension is over. In other words, I think he's turning baseball into the equivalent of a part-time job. This idea would also mesh well with the delayed negotiations. He might not have minded if he didn't get signed until May, except the economy has been so weak that maybe he feared he wouldn't get signed ala Bonds. So he signs.
This is all speculation, of course. If this is actually the case, one might also wonder whether he tested positive on purpose just to get some extra time off. Would he have the personality to do that?
Does anybody know if a player in Manny's situation, taking hCG under a prescription, would have been banned under the NFL's or NBA's drug testing schemes?
I'm curious as to what Scott Boras' involvement is in this debacle. This is the 2nd big name from his stable, arguably 2 of his top stars in Alex Rodriguez & Manny Ramirez. Am I supposed to believe he was oblivious to what his players put into their bodies? This is the same guy with those famous "free agent reports" he gives to GMs that tout his player's attributes. He's their consultant, shouldn't he know their workout regimine?
Do we know who provivded the documents indicating Manny was taking hCG?
Any chance they were fabricated by Manny' doctors and delivered by Boras to MLB to provide an excuse that Manny could use as a cover for the testosterone levels.
Having been caught red-handed on the testoterone, in Manny's mind,a fraudulent document may let him feel he avoided the tainting of steroids.
Will ... is there any evidence that Manny actually took hCG or could he be fraudently copping to it as the lesser evil?
There is a chance that the hCG documentation was fabricated but I think it unlikely. All MLB appeared to have was elevated artifical testosterone levels and not a definitive identifier as to what drug caused it. So, if the hCG issue was not in play, MLB's case would be more tenuous. Yes, they could still suspend him for "just cause" but it would probably cause friction with the MLBPA. Thus, it would make no sense for anyone on Manny's side to fabricate evidence since it makes it easier for Manny to be suspended, unless as I had previously mused about, Manny wanted to be suspended. If Manny didn't want to be suspended, then there would've been no reason to fabricate evidence.
215 comments have been left for this post.
Wow! That's a shocker.
I really don't know if I'm sarcastic or serious.
'Turning the page' on performance-enhancing drugs is like stopping reading the Bible after Genesis - you'll miss 99% of the story.
It could be worse... he could still be on the Red Sox. There is now grumbling among Boston fans (unfairly, since there is no evidence to date) that Big Papi might have been using pre-2005.
Where is this "grumbling among Boston fans?" Please.
You mean "among YANKEE fans."
agreed. papi's two best seasons came in 06 and 07 (or at least two OF his best). the only "red sox fans" i've heard suspect papi of using are really boston sports fans who don't follow baseball closely and have jumped to the (decidedly incorrect) conclusion that 95% of baseball players are juiced.