McCarthy's classic argument -- guilt by association. So did his father's. Say it with me: hereditary degenerative condition. You with hunters can ignore this fact, but that doesn't make it go away. ...and no one ever loses weight after going 8 months without lifting. So do I. And I'm nearly 40. Guess I'm a roider, too. You people throw these things out there, often standing alone they're not even accurate (like the "sudden burst of power" in 94), and always they are brought up in no context whatsoever with his situation. To ignore the hereditary condition, for example, is inane. What common sense evidence? The drivel you posted earlier, all of which is taken out of context? I mean, do you seriously equate acne with steroid use? No, it's precisely what is happening here. * some guys used steroids. * it looks like a lot of guys were using, and we can't really know who or how many * well, this guy played with that guy, and he's got zits * anybody who hit over 40 home runs after 2003 is suspect No, this type of argument is a classic case of a witch hunt.
not ignoring. Pretty much what has been said in this thread. The guy had a shoulder condition that can be traced back to genetics. To assume it was steroids is poor judgment. he was remarkably consistent from 1994 through 2003, and he didn't really miss any time due to injuries aside from getting that damn left hand broken due to how he held the knob of the bat and exposed his hands with his stance. Until the shoulder thing got bad enough, of course. He was pretty open about the coristone injections he would take for that shoulder, and about how he would take them but then didn't want to take another one and his play would suffer because of it. And yeah, a guy who worked out his entire career...all of a sudden is not only out of the sport, but he also can't really lift those weights to even slightly the same degree after his shoulder problems. No kidding, he's going to lose a lot of that mass? My assumption here is that many athletes are able to stay in shape and continue a habit they've built up over the past 25 years of their lives in terms of lifting weights...so they don't see as dramatic a dropoff as a guy who can't do that. He was connected with Cammy. He was also joined at the hip with Biggio, and they were great friends off the field too. Yet no one will convict Biggio by association.. even with him "suddenly" hittting for power at the age of 27. (And I certainly don't think they should) I don't think I'm being all that biased. I just don't think the evidence presented is remotely good on its own when looking at the whole picture. agreed
mccarthy, I guess, or maybe not, ridiculous analogy, the fact is we know a lot of guys used steroids during this time no evidence of this might be the stupidest argument of all, you may lose muscle, not mass did you get it after puberty?
Because there's nothing. Nothing at all, but some zits and some pictures of his withered body after having gone months without lifting. I get so defensive because people dogmatically state that he used, with no evidence. I do *not* have a problem with aruments like "we can't assume Bagwell didn't" or "Bagwell is hurt by the era he played in," etc. I *only* have a problem with these idiots who want to dogmatically state the he definitely used, as if they know. That's just stupid. And it ticks me off. I understand this sentiment, but it smacks of McCarthyism to me. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's how it sits with me.
The fact is McCarthy knew a lot guys were aligning with the Commies at that time. It's not ridiculous at all--it's perfectly analagous. I shall be checking with my friend google later this afternoon, hopefully I'll find time... LOL are you kidding me? How does one lose muscle and not mass? Does it get replaced with fat? Water? Cellulite? Air? Yep. It actually comes and goes.
side affects of steroid use Skin Steroid abuse can cause acne, cysts, and oily hair and skin. young bagwell
his father had an arthritic shoulder. It's not definitive that it was genetic, but it's at least as likely as it is not. What can I say? I disagree. If you're a guy obsessed with working out--esp. the upper body--and you build yourself up an enormous amount... and suddenly have to stop? Yeah, you will lose mass. Especially if you keep up your cardio exercise type stuff. actually, I did, oddly enough.
common sense, if you lift weights, you're excercising, if you're not, if you stop an excercise routine, why would lose weight, where was the weight coming from when you were lifting?
lastly, i hope he gets in, I was a big fan, he was fun to watch and he was professional, steroids or not. but because I was a fan i'm not going to ignore obvious signs. and the caminiti connection actually isn't a big deal to me, the other signs are.
I thought it was pretty commonly understood that muscle weighs more than fat. Earlier you stated that "you may lose muscle, not mass". How, pray tell, if one "loses muscle", will he not lose weight? Is muscle weightless, then?
No, just the obvious context. Why aren't the even more obvious things in his favor a big deal to you? It's like you WANT to accuse him.
dude liked to exercise. could easily continue cardio while droppnig the weight lifting. leads to weight loss.. as all the exercise threads in the hangout would tell you
pgabs: "you may lose muscle, not mass" pgabs: "why would lose weight, where was the weight coming from when you were lifting" So, according to pgabriel, it is entirely possible to lose muscle and not lose any weight. or mass. So what we've learned here today, is that muscle: * is weightless * has no mass Awesome.
Steroids allow your muscles to recover and esentially allow you to work out harder for longer periods of time. The muscle is the same as any other muscle you have. This really means nothing at all. I can understand why someone would associate a small guy getting huge over an offseason to be steroid edvidence, but getting smaller isn't.
I'm trying to figure out where the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, applicable in criminal prosecutions, became mandated to be applied to people expressing their opinions about baseball players using steroids on a basketball BBS.
well, like you, I can't *prove* anything. just seeing if your mind could possibly open to the very real possibility that Bagwell's loss of mass could have come from the fact that he didn't work out--for a very, very long time. It's an amazing coincidence that this loss of mass happened after a surgery and during/after the longest (to date) break from intense upper-body workouts in his adult life. Are you going to continue to ignore this? Because this, unlike assumptions based on zits and associations, is documented fact. And, you would do well to pay attention to this note from juicystream: Steroids allow your muscles to recover and esentially allow you to work out harder for longer periods of time. The muscle is the same as any other muscle you have. Muscle is muscle, whether it was built more quickly due to PEDs or whether you came by it honestly. And when one loses mass, it was muscle mass. (unless you're just fat!) Bags lost muscle mass, lots of it. That proves nothing. Especially given the context of his very real injury and his long, long layoff from the very workout regimen that built him up in the first place.
I'm sorry I always argue this so vehemently. The witch hunters have every right to express this opinion. And, I have every right to call it what it is: witch hunting.
I got my pitch fork out and a i'm bagwell's front door because I think he used steroids bring a rope I don't think you understand the term "witchhunt"
