See, if you had said that from the beginning, I wouldn't have called it personal. I don't agree with it, but you made your case, and that's fine. Where it gets personal is when you essentially call someone out for being "biased," yet you don't explain why and how you believe that to be the case. You know, evidence. Now, let's get to your post. Huh? Major's point was that you can't make a judgment either way. You're talking about a sample size of two guys with McNamee and Canseco, one of which has only been partially correct! I don't think I need to explain how two completely unconnected people to Blair have minimal correlation to the truthfulness of what he says. Hell, Mother Teresa was a great person who told the truth -- I guess that means no other person in the world lies, huh? Another important difference, which I'll get to in a second, is that these two other "shady" characters actually said their information. It was a first-hand account. Here, it's not. See, if that were the case, I'd be much more willing to believe this as plausible. It's not. What you have is a second-hand source detailing what Blair supposedly said in off-the-record, watercooler conversation. If Blair himself would come out and say it, as you said, that's one thing. But on the record, to the federal government, you name it -- he's denied it every single time. Again, this isn't to say it can't be true. But let's wait for more evidence to come in, because what we have now isn't very strong. Very few human beings have the physical talent and strength to play Major League Baseball, especially at a power position like 1B. That argument could be used for anyone. The first part is opinion. As for the second, having a shoulder that won't even allow you to put on a shirt might have a slight influence. Just a hunch. By the logic you're using, why should anyone ever try and lift? If all it takes is shrinking in size (will happen naturally when you stop lifting, for whatever reason) and a second-hand rumor from somebody's sister's friend's boyfriend's janitor to convict them as guilty, what is there to gain? Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Of course it's possible Bagwell used. It's possible anyone used. But the evidence available now is thin at best, and that's the point here.
Before my turn at beating this dead horse of a thread, let me say I wouldn't be surprised if he did steroids, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. My only point is that the development of power for Bagwell between the time he was traded to Houston and his third or fourth year was abnormal. Neither Houston nor Boston projected such from him as a reasonable developmental curve. Not everybody in the world could bulk up like he did over that two or three year period. This is part of the reason why Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell didn't seem so incredibly stupid at the time. It may be great nutrition, a solid workout regemine and good genes. It could be Deca Durabolin, and Winstrol. It could be something in-between, like creatine and DHEA. But something special and not routine happened for him. I don't think it does much for the credibility of the 'didn't do 'em' crowd to try and downplay that. I am absolutely willing to believe that he had a great trainer and started taking the right nutrition supplements. But his sudden strength wasn't just normal happenstance. It simply doesn’t happen like that for most major leaguers.
Palmeiro never had one season as good as Bagwell's 94, 96-99 seasons. His peak as a hitter was a lot lower than Bagwell's, but he was better for longer. The best stretch of Palmeiro hitting career was in his mid to late 30's. Bagwell got worse every year after 30. It's abnormal for a ballplayer to have his best years in his mid-to late 30s like palmeiro did, while it's perfect normal for a players to have his best in his mid to early 20s like Bagwell. Bagwell also played most of his career in a pitchers park while Palmeiro played almost all of his in extreme hitting parks. Bagwell was better, but they were different, Palmeiro got his value from a consistent and long career while Bagwell had a shorter career but a higher peak. Sorry if I was unclear, I was just trying to point out that context matters. I was referring more to a situation like Bagwell moving from early 90's astrodome to mmp. You are right that Wrigley largely plays as a hitters park and even that 87 was an abnormally good year for hitters. I would still argue that late 90's in arlington park was a better hitting environment than 87 in wrigley. My larger argument is that there is nothing in Bagwell's Major League statistical career path that is abnormal for a hall of fame player or would indicate steroid use. Especially when you consider 1) the changing home hitting environment from a)early 90's astrodome to b)the more hitter friendly later 90's astrodome to c)Enron/MMP (particularly) 2000-2001 enron and 2) the league wide hitting/power increase from ~1994 to basically the end of Bagwell's career.
Yes but a couple things. Bagwell 94 drastic hr increase correlated with two things. 1) His entering baseball's tradition prime years of 26-30. If he were to break out as a player, it would be somewhere around this age. 2) a massive league-wide offense and home run increase. The league average 13.4 Hr/PA which was the 2nd highest total of all time up to that point and represented about a ~33% increase from the previous few seasons. Did everone decide to start taking steroids right then? Does it explain Tony Gwynn more than doubling his hr/pa from the previous few years? Does it explain a 37 yr Brett Butler hitting as many hr in a strike-shortened season as he did his previous ~2,500 at bats. Does it explain Ken Griffey Jr. having the best hr/rate in his career (which btw was a ~40% increase over his hr/rate from his previous 3 seasons). Point being that a lot of players from that time had career years and huge hr spikes that 1994 season and there were probably a lot of factors that played into that rate that didn't include steroids (expansion, the baseballs, etc, the emergence of weight training w/ or w/out PED).
Berkman's having a career year now, an after 30's spike in production. Lets raid through all his belongings for performance enhancers.
It's in the twinkies. I've got vids of EbolaScola lacing his twinkies with a hypodermic needle. I'll youtube it when I get home later on. (just kidding ebol)
right...he's hitting .080 above his career average and is on pace to hit around 50 homeruns. he must be juicing.
He just ate wheaties and drank milk and happened to gain tons of muscle and be an incredible powerlifter smack in the middle of the roid era, hanging out with a bunch of roid-using teammates, and his body breaking down when steroids got banned and his massive weight loss since is just a co-inky-dink - we all know this by now, let's move on.
First off to restate my feelings, I think he juiced. I would be surprised if he did not. But this "proof" that people are citing is what makes me mad. You can see in that card the guy had a solid frame and foundation. Obviously lifted, if you saw him in person back then you would think WOW! that guy is huge. Secondly his shoulder it totally screwed. It is hard to lift with that, just coming off of roids does not make you shrink. Bonds is still huge and at his age muscle is REALLY HARD to hold on to. I think he did roids because of a number of small things, none of them are proof
You'll never acknowledge his degenerative shoulder, will you? Now, that was an intelligent, well-stated take on the matter from someone who thinks Bagwell probably juiced. SamFisher and all you other Bagwell-haters, take note.
Acknowledge what - that cessation of the use of steroids like Androstenedione (which he used) and other steroids (which our hero would have never used, he just went right up to the gray Andro-area and stopped when it came to the real hard stuff, unilike others) - would have, in all likelihood, accelerated the degeneration in his shoulder due to the regenerative effects of steroids? Oh I acknowledged that - that's about as valuable as the "he just lifted weights alot" defense.
Who is this "a bunch"? I can think of one, and he wasn't even there for the majority of Bagwell's career. Furthermore, the shoulder "breaking down" also happened to his father, who to my knowledge didn't even play baseball. So, let's review the two scenarios for how this happened. One, a bizarre steroid claim that has no factual basis or evidence. Two, a genetic condition that happened exactly the same to his father coupled with him reaching the magic age (35) where players decline physically. Hmm, I wonder which seems more reasonable and logical? But, I suppose the initial scenario is more fun, so I guess that's the truth. But why stop with Bagwell? Obviously, any player who ever gains a lot of muscle can't have done it via weightlifting -- it's all in the roids! Let's kick 'em all out! Let's have 1-8 lineups of Adam Everett, Michael Bourn, etc., since they're the only ones who seem to have immunity in this witchhunt some of you seemingly have going.
Oh god, I am feeling an impassioned, typical Cat argument hung on some technicality about Caminiti and Pettite and Clemens and other known juicers - save it - I don't care, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is not in effect. WOW INCREDIBL-y meaningless. With the exception of the steroids that he admitted to using such as androstenedione and all the other circumstantial evidence. I could of course tell you about the fact that steroids are frequently used to combat injuries, but no need - you're just going to keep ranting. I hope 25 years from now your kids tell you that Bagwell was a cheater just to hurt your feelings, then they build a baseball field in iowa and you and Jeff's ghost can go do 200-lb dumbell chest presses together.
WOW, you just (again) disqualified yourself from arguing this intelligently. I'll go tell my doctor right now that he should never ask for my family's medical history, because SamFisher says it's "INCREDIBL-y meaningless". Wait a minute... Which is it, Sam? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
these two points 1. Arthritis is possibly genetic in forms 2. "the fact" that roids are used this way? Wow do you hve any studies? why don't they use roids to help the millions of people with joint problems then? why didn't I get them when I had knee surgery? You are wrong and just ditto'ing some crap you heard somewhere.
Pettitte and Clemens are irrelevant to this conversation, as they came to the team well after any illegal drug use would have begun. No, more like inconvenient for your argument. In your incredibly lame insult post, you linked his body breaking down with steroids being banned. If his father's body broke down of a nearly identical condition without steroids being used, that is not meaningless. That's contradictory to your account. Using legal drugs has no correlation to using illegal drugs. And don't mistake a witchhunt for circumstantial evidence. So anyone who's ever had an injury used steroids. Got it. I hope in the next 25 years you learn basic analytical reasoning skills and how to logically construct arguments, because you're failing miserably here.
i know sam can be abrasive, but no one's combatted the argument that bagwell is a text book case of a steroid user, other than we don't have proof.
but the way he is "proving" it is wrong and uses false info. I think he juiced but not because he has shoulder injury or he shrunk or grew.
