A-Roid fesses up..

[Arctic Blast]

While I always do respect someone who comes clean and can fess up to a mistake in their past, I also seem to remember ARod making statements about how he never had and never would use anything like STEROIDS in the past. Note to athletes...if you are and/or were using performance enhancers, don't make public comments about how wrong it would be for you to use them. It just makes you look like a gigantic douche when you're inevitably exposed.

[HoustonGM]

Put it this way: he says he took them in Texas to try and "justify the contract". Well, he's still the highest-paid player ever, and now he's on the biggest stage in all of baseball, and possibly in all of sport. Wouldn't that tend to imply that he has more reason to take them now, not less?

Not once he factors in the fact that there is now strict testing policies and punishments. The risk/reward equation has changed since 2003.

[boomboom]

also, i doubt that he only did it in the texas years, aren't the Mariners one of the teams with the most positive test out of all Franchises? (including minors?)

[dickay]

I fully believe that many are using new designer drugs that are probably not technically "illegal" in the eyes of the govt. and are undetectable with the current testing program.

Lest not forget....HGH is not something commonly used to "heal quicker" as Pettitte put it. Its used more often to "maintain" the effects of roids and/or other PED's and to help "mask" them from detection. There is alot of suspicion that those who are purchasing HGH are probably doing it to make their roid use undetectable in a test, as HGH is currently undetectable nobody will know.

Most doctor reviews i've seen claim they've never heard of HGH alone helping anyone heal quicker.

[Pavelb1]

Couple of things. The government has blanket drug definition laws. I can't create a drug that mimics the effects of MDMA and say 'the drug i made hasn't been outlawed'. I suspect the same is true of steroids.

And I think HGH can be detected via blood work.

[dickay]

Couple of things. The government has blanket drug definition laws. I can't create a drug that mimics the effects of MDMA and say 'the drug i made hasn't been outlawed'. I suspect the same is true of steroids.

And I think HGH can be detected via blood work.

The first paragraph is interesting. I'm not exactly sure how they'd enforce that but regardless, i'd say if they are "designing" drugs that it would have to be illegal anyhow as i'm sure there is some FDA disclosure and trial requirements. Its hard to prove though until they know what it is and find a way to test for it.

As for the HGH, i thought there was a blood test that is very controversial and unreliable but i honestly haven't followed it too closely. There is no blood testing in baseball presently so its moot.

[HoustonGM]

I fully believe that many are using new designer drugs that are probably not technically "illegal" in the eyes of the govt. and are undetectable with the current testing program.

Lest not forget....HGH is not something commonly used to "heal quicker" as Pettitte put it. Its used more often to "maintain" the effects of roids and/or other PED's and to help "mask" them from detection. There is alot of suspicion that those who are purchasing HGH are probably doing it to make their roid use undetectable in a test, as HGH is currently undetectable nobody will know.

Most doctor reviews i've seen claim they've never heard of HGH alone helping anyone heal quicker.

I've never heard of HGH being used to mask steroid use. I know that HGH is undetectable in everything but blood tests, but that would simply mean that the test won't show the HGH, not that the HGH would hide the steroids. This is the first time I'm hearing that.

Considering that one of the primary legal uses of HGH is to help stimulate the immune system, and that some of its effects include calcium retention, strengthening bones, and the like, I don't think it's out of the question that players used HGH to help them overcome injury. Hell, even if it doesn't do anything, that doesn't mean that players didn't try it for the sole reason of hoping that it helps them heal.

[HoustonGM]

also, i doubt that he only did it in the texas years, aren't the Mariners one of the teams with the most positive test out of all Franchises? (including minors?)

I don't know. I do want to know what Jose Canseco has to say. In his book where he talks about introducing A-Rod to a steroid dealer, he says that the first time A-Rod came to his house was in the mid/late 90's, and A-Rod just asked if "steroids **** you up". Then he says that the next time A-Rod came to his house, he asked about the steroid dealer. He gives no indication as to what year that next time was. If Canseco comes out and says that that conversation happening in, say, winter 2000-2001, I would absolutely believe confidently A-Rod's story that he began using in 2001.

[oriole^]

Not once he factors in the fact that there is now strict testing policies and punishments. The risk/reward equation has changed since 2003.

I don't think it's changed more than a trip from Dallas to New York would change things...and I'm using the same criteria that A-Rod himself mentioned ("I had to justify my contract").

I think it's also foolish not to assume that there are undetectable PED's now, which of course lowers the risk greatly.

Intelligence agencies such as the CIA have a practice they call a "limited hangout". The scenario is that one of your secret (and possibly illegal) projects is about to be introduced to widespread public scrutiny, and there's no real way around it...so you go out in front of the Congressional committee or whichever and you admit part of it. You expose one operative or one facility or one incident or whatever, and all the investigators focus in on that, and later all of the repercussions will be based on that one relatively unimportant thing. So you take some heat, you're exposed for a short while, but ultimately, you aren't in terrible trouble and, with a bit of an adjustment, you can keep doing what you've been doing.

This feels like that. I think he got caught and, given the possibility of what could happen, admitted to the least damaging thing he could, with hopes that the whole thing would blow over and they wouldn't catch anything else.

[OldFatGuy]

I don't think it's changed more than a trip from Dallas to New York would change things...and I'm using the same criteria that A-Rod himself mentioned ("I had to justify my contract").

I think it's also foolish not to assume that there are undetectable PED's now, which of course lowers the risk greatly.

Intelligence agencies such as the CIA have a practice they call a "limited hangout". The scenario is that one of your secret (and possibly illegal) projects is about to be introduced to widespread public scrutiny, and there's no real way around it...so you go out in front of the Congressional committee or whichever and you admit part of it. You expose one operative or one facility or one incident or whatever, and all the investigators focus in on that, and later all of the repercussions will be based on that one relatively unimportant thing. So you take some heat, you're exposed for a short while, but ultimately, you aren't in terrible trouble and, with a bit of an adjustment, you can keep doing what you've been doing.

This feels like that. I think he got caught and, given the possibility of what could happen, admitted to the least damaging thing he could, with hopes that the whole thing would blow over and they wouldn't catch anything else.

That's very possible, indeed. Or, it's also very possible he's telling the truth.

[oriole^]

Couple of things. The government has blanket drug definition laws. I can't create a drug that mimics the effects of MDMA and say 'the drug i made hasn't been outlawed'. I suspect the same is true of steroids.

Sort of. As I understand it, this was essentially the case for androstenedione during the late 1990's: it was a legal steroid, even though there were laws against steroids on the books. The government had to reclassify it as "anabolic" in order to ban it, although it isn't really anabolic in nature. I don't know whether that reclassification is enough to make the law as "blanket" as you might think.

[dickay]

I've never heard of HGH being used to mask steroid use. I know that HGH is undetectable in everything but blood tests, but that would simply mean that the test won't show the HGH, not that the HGH would hide the steroids. This is the first time I'm hearing that.

Considering that one of the primary legal uses of HGH is to help stimulate the immune system, and that some of its effects include calcium retention, strengthening bones, and the like, I don't think it's out of the question that players used HGH to help them overcome injury. Hell, even if it doesn't do anything, that doesn't mean that players didn't try it for the sole reason of hoping that it helps them heal.

By masking, what I mean is the will use HGH in lieu of steroids to maintain their strength and weight during the season. This way they only take steroids during the offseason when there is less testing and their whereabouts can be suspect (away on vacation, i'll take it when i get back..etc). After an offseason full of roid use, they use HGH during the season to maintain their form and pass the more frequent and available drug tests.

I've seen many articles that claim HGH alone won't do anything. I've seen some that claim that any effects take many months. I really haven't seen any that claims you can take it to recover from an injury quicker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/sp...l/02drugs.html