informants? and the point is that no one hasn't dragged bagwell in front of a grand jury because he didn't play with someone who snitched on him.
Maybe, or maybe he didn't use roids. My point is that there isn't the circumstantial evidence around Bagwell that there is around Bonds, McGwire, etc. Also, Bagwells numbers don't follow the pattern of a late '90s peak that those players (and suspicious guys like Luis Gonzalez and Brett Boone) had.
if canseco doesn't snitch on mcguire he's home free. mcguire's only mistake was befriending an a-hole.
No, the league's mistake was covering all this stuff up for years and looking the other way and then trying to collude against Canseco. He finally got a belly full. After viewing all the supposed "truthful" testimony on Capitol Hill under oath no less, and watching Jose being interviewed, I have come to the conclusion that Jose is probably telling the truth and most of the sluggers that are denying what he said and denying steroid use are probably lying. Palmeiro's and McGwire's testimonies could have been replaced with the "I did not have sex with that woman" speech and you could tell no difference. The circumstantial evidence surrounding Bagwell is this: 1. The league was full of steroid abuse; 2) His forehead and temple started bulging as much as his biceps; 3) His body changed as soon as the league came down hard on steroid use. Kinda like somebody denying a crime. Nobody saw them. But they've got gunpowder residue on their hands and they were known to be at the crime scene right around the time the crime was committed. They are a prime suspect. Bagwell is a prime suspect of steroid abuse. No he hasn't been convicted. O.J. wasn't convicted either.
Yeah, except Bagwell has the shoulder condition as an excuse, as opposed to someone like McGwire or Giambi. So a better analogy would be he si the guy at the crime scene with gunpowder residue on his hands who just happens to work at a gunpowder factory packaging the stuff. You'll probably never know the truth.
not sure if you've taken steriods or any of the prohormones but they do make you gain muscle and weight faster. i was on 1-ad (which is banned now) and i had been working out for a few months before i took it. i am 5'10 and before working out i went from 155 to 160 after the first few months. then i started taking supplements and the main culprit 1-ad (which is closer to roids than andro) and i added about 20 pounds in 3 weeks. subsequently i lost my ding-a-ling powers and my mamacita was not happy, so i quit taking the 1-ad, and about a month or so later i started recovering from it. i did gain a lot of muscle from that cycle too. after i quit i maintained 175 for awhile until i just got tired of working out like i always do. yeah you have more energy but you also just pack on the bulk faster and get stronger. in my eyes roids simply are not that far of a step from the andro-type supplements and they were able to turn a skinny guy like me into someone that was getting ripped fast. if you are a pro athlete and its your job to be in shape and you know other guys in your profession are using roids then i can see people switching to roids.
so because someone hasn't accused bagwell we can't be suspicious. unfortunately since no one's tested, everyone's suspect. do you think the only guys who took roids are involved int he blaco investigation or the ones accused by canseco. as far as the increase in home runs, you have to look at it in relation to the player's career. yeah, mac hit seventy, but he had hit over fifty before. bagwell's never been close to those numbers but bagwell has a couple of peak years. the 94 season, he hit 39 in a shortened season, he had only hit twenty in a season before. mcguire hit 52 and 58 before he hit seventy.
to further invalidate the peak season argument, canseco didn't play with mcquire when he broke the record. he claimed they were doing roids in oaktown in the eighties. homeruns were up across the board that year, the guys who were hitting a bunch of homeruns before were still the leaders. this time the leaders made it into the 60s.
Of course lack of evidence doesn't mean someone didn't do something. All I am saying is that there is circumstantial evidence surround Bonds and McGwire that isn't surrounding Bagwell. If there was circumstantial evidence about Bagwell I would point it out. As far as the peak years, 1994 was not a big peak year for most roiders. Most of those big homer years were in the late 90's and ealry 2000s. Bagwell did not see an upsurge in homers when guys like Luis Gonzalez and Brett Boone were practically doubling their homerun totals.
what does that have to do with the price of tea in china. we are talking about jeff bagwell's career, not anyone else's. if bagwell did roids, and started them in 94, then the numbers would support that argument. who cares about when supposedly everyone else did them. brady anderson hit 50 in 95.
If you don't have a peak season it doesn't mean you didn't use roids. But if you DID have a peak season (like hitting 70 homers when you never hit 50, or if you double your highest total ever) then there is some circumstantial evidence.
yeah, but that was jeff's 3rd year in the league. it's not like he spent 10 years hitting 20 homeruns and then all of a sudden hit 45. 94 was his coming out party. also...the fences were moved in in 1994.
It's not difficult to understand. Maybe you are misunderstanding what is goig on here. We are trying to find circumstantial evidence for roiding. If I guy consistently hits 30-40 homers over his career from his 3rd year to his 15 year then it's hard to say he started roiding at some point. Does it mean he didn't roid? No. But if I guy hits 30-40 for 12 years then hits 70, that's some circumstantial evidence.
but that argument doesn't hold water in mcguire's case because according to cansenco he was roiding long before he hit 70 so you can't attribute his spike to roids.
Back to the original subject: Can someone accurately repeat what Lance said about Bags? (and maybe add some context if needed). I would like to comment but need to know what I'm commenting on before saying anything.
1) Andro is not a steroid. 2) IIRC, Bags quit when MLB outlawed Andro. pgabriel: I wouldn't argue that it's wrong to be suspicious. I would only argue that one *cannot* conclusively say that he did (or that he didn't). The general public is not privy to enough evidence to know one way or the other. Also, I don't think pointing out McGwire's great years in the late '80s nixes the "spike" argument at all. IIRC it was in '95 or '96 that the BALCO perfected their cream & clear stuff, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that some guys got bolder in their use of steroids knowing it was that much more difficult for the public to find out. Finally, someone said that Brady Anderson hit 50 HR in 1995. No, he didn't. He hit 16. He hit 50 dingers in 1996. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/anderbr01.shtml) Considering the "spike" argument, I thought it might be compelling to compare some guys' career averages to their career highs. I don't know how this will turn out, but lessee: Player 162gm-avg career-high differential Anderson 19 50 31 Gonzo 24 57 33 Bret Boone 23 37 14 McGwire 50(damn!70 Canseco: 40, 46 Bagwell: 34, 47 Sosa: 43, 66 test
Hit the stinkin' submit button on accident. Considering the "spike" argument, I thought it might be compelling to compare some guys' career averages to their career highs. I don't know how this will turn out, but lessee: Player 162gm-avg career-high differential Anderson 19 50 31 Gonzo 24 57 33 Bret Boone 23 37 14 McGwire 50(damn!) 70 20 Canseco 40 46 6 Bagwell 34 47 13 Sosa 43 66 23 Bonds 42 73 31
^^ It's also useful to look at batting averages. Brett Boone and Barry Bonds hit 60-70 points higher in in their best years.
