Big Mac's secret sauce

[Swaggs]

I must admit, after watching 60 Minutes, I think I might get Canseco's book. I tend to spend a fair amount of money on books per month and I'm a sucker for insider info like this (Ball Four by Jim Bouton was one of the best books I have read), so to have names named in my favorite sport, during the era I grew up in, and to hear stuff from Canseco, who really has nothing to lose, I don't think I can pass it up. Anyone else planning to buy it?

[Swaggs]

I think the reason Canseco gains a little bit of credibility here, as opposed to very little elsewhere, is because people just are not going to believe that he, Caminitti, and Giambi are the only guys to have used and Giambi was a guy who had denied using it, but when forced under grand jury admitted that he did, putting that shadow of a doubt on others who have denied usage.

It is kind of fun to play detective and think about logical candidates who used. Thinking back on my past Pirates' teams, I can think of two guys who seem to fit the profile.

Jeff King Link He played for the Pirates from 89-94, never hitting more than 14 HR. In 95, he hit 18 in 122 games and got hurt. In 96, he hit 30. In 97, 28. And in 98 he hit 24 in 131 games and got injured again, and never really recovered.

Jay Bell Link He was a regular from 90-96, never hitting more than 16 HR. In 97-98, he hit 21 and 20, and then exploded for 38 in 99. He played parts of four more years, never hitting more than 18.

Both were aging, above average players, but not stars. They both had made some money, but not crazy money yet. They both had injury problems after their big seasons, although that could be due to age.

So, a big season or period of abnormally big seasons that are out of character from prior performance. Aging(ish) players, that need a big payday before they run out of time. Injuries around or shortly after their "big" seasons. Those could be some clues as to who used.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why should we believe Canseco over Weiss, Steinbeck, LaRussa and Alderson?

We have had what, one player? (Canseco) accuse any specific MLB players of using steroids. There are very likely hundreds of ballplayers that knew at least one player who was taking them and yet none of them have named any names and It's probably a safe assumption that many, if not almost all of them would lie if questioned. I don't believe any of these guys or Canseco. I'm not going to try and pretend so and so took them and so and so didn't. The fact is, we all have no idea and it will likely stay that way.

I don't think any less of power hitters like McGwire or Bonds or pure contact guys like Doug Glanville. I do think less of baseball as a whole however.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

But it was not illegal nor banned from baseball. How can he be penalized for taking something not banned or illegal? Anyone could have taken Andro or creatine (and many did).

Well, no it wasn't illegal. But if we are going by the standard that an athlete's performance can be questioned if the physical performance was aided by chemistry, and not solely by the athletes' own hard work and talent, then I believe that McGwire ought to be criticized. Andro is taken to abnormally increase the levels of testosterone in the body, which in turn is thought to build muscle mass that would not be there if no andro was taken, which in turn is thought to enhance athletic performance.

I personally have no problems with athletes using performance enhancers. As crass as it may sound, the best product ends up on the field. Also, as crass as it may sound, it's not very different from a ballerina who maims herself long-term for a short window of glory (and again for our entertainment). I also think of it as akin to a kid who takes the Princeton Review or Kaplan and manages to get into an elite university--some people just have to do what they think they need to do. Not completely fair, but that's just a fact of life. But what does concern me is that if you set a standard concerning what is right and what is wrong, then you can't make exceptions when you make judgements off of that standard, as some have in giving McGwire a pass on this one.

Originally Posted by Arles

Why should we believe Canseco over Weiss, Steinbeck, LaRussa and Alderson?

My issue is not whether we believe Canseco. I was comparing him with any number of sports reporters. I don't see what makes Canseco any different from the many sportswriters who have made all sorts of innuendo and accusation regarding steroid abuse with very little direct evidence. The only difference is that nobody in the sports media gets called on their reporting.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Well, no it wasn't illegal. But if we are going by the standard that an athlete's performance can be questioned if the physical performance was aided by chemistry, and not solely by the athletes' own hard work and talent, then I believe that McGwire ought to be criticized.

Under that logic, any vitamin or nutritional suppliment that helps increase muscle mass (many out there with no creatine or andro) are all thrown in with this. I think the only way to look at this is to start with what people are allowed to use. If the league allows someone to use Andro, then they can't complain when they do it. Either ban it or let everyone use it without caveats.

Andro is taken to abnormally increase the levels of testosterone in the body, which in turn is thought to build muscle mass that would not be there if no andro was taken, which in turn is thought to enhance athletic performance.

The same could be said for a high-protein diet.

I personally have no problems with athletes using performance enhancers. As crass as it may sound, the best product ends up on the field. Also, as crass as it may sound, it's not very different from a ballerina who maims herself long-term for a short window of glory (and again for our entertainment). I also think of it as akin to a kid who takes the Princeton Review or Kaplan and manages to get into an elite university--some people just have to do what they think they need to do. Not completely fair, but that's just a fact of life. But what does concern me is that if you set a standard concerning what is right and what is wrong, then you can't make exceptions when you make judgements off of that standard, as some have in giving McGwire a pass on this one.

The reason I have no problem with McGwire using Andro is that MLB did not ban it and it was legally sold over the counter. Therefore, IMO, it's no different than a diet change or vitamin shake tailored to build muscle.

My issue is not whether we believe Canseco. I was comparing him with any number of sports reporters. I don't see what makes Canseco any different from the many sportswriters who have made all sorts of innuendo and accusation regarding steroid abuse with very little direct evidence. The only difference is that nobody in the sports media gets called on their reporting.

You have a good point here. The sports media routinely crucifies athletes with no evidence simply to sell papers. But that doesn't give Canseco any more credence. If he wanted credibility, he should have gone on record before he was blackballed by the majors, retired and ran out of cash. Right now, it looks to me like someone trying to make a quick buck. As I said earlier, how do we know that the stories he wrote about Mac didn't really involve Dave Henderson or Felix Jose (both players Canseco was closer to). Or that his story about Pudge and Juan Gonzalez didn't really involve Dean Palmer and Dan Peltier?

My point isn't that Canseco made everything up. It's simply that he changed to names to sell more books. How many books would people buy if Felix Jose and Dean Palmer were there instead of McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro? Plus, who can call him on it? It's just going to be his words versus someone else.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

...The same could be said for a high-protein diet...

...The reason I have no problem with McGwire using Andro is that MLB did not ban it and it was legally sold over the counter. Therefore, IMO, it's no different than a diet change or vitamin shake tailored to build muscle. ..

You have a point about not really faulting McGwire himself for using something that was legal (at the time). But, unfortunately for McGwire, the side effects of androstendione are similar to that of anabolic steroids. According to the FDA (hxxp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/androqa.html)

Q: What are the side effects of dietary supplements containing androstenedione?

A: Potential long-term adverse health consequences in men include testicular atrophy, impotence, and the development of female characteristics such as breast enlargement. Women who use these products may develop male characteristics such as male pattern baldness, deepening of the voice, increased facial hair, and enlargement of the clitoris, as well as abnormal menstrual cycle and abnormal bleeding, and blood clots. Women may also be at increased risk for breast cancer and endometrial cancer. Children and adolescents are at risk for androgenic and estrogenic effects as in adults, for early onset of puberty, and for premature cessation of growth, such that they will be short as adults.


Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Androstenedione is comparable to a protein shake. If it was good enough for the East German olympic team, then it's probably a little suspicious in my book...

[Arles]

After re-reading this thread, I think that what I have been trying to say has morphed as the argument changed. My primary statement is that McGwire did not take anything that enhanced his performance even remotely close to what steroids do. Andro has been proven to not have even remotely the same effect as anabolic steroids or HGH in increasing performance. So, what has frustrated me in this discussion is the grouping of taking Andro and Steroids as the same thing. To me, this is like saying someone that ate a poppy-seed muffin and another person that shot up with opium essentially were getting the same high.

If you go on the premise that McGwire did not use steroids (which I understand can be debated), then you are left only with the spectre of Andro. And, as I have stated, scientific studies have shown that Andro does not have a sliver of the performance enhancing capabilities of steroids or HGH. The only reason it is even being talked about by the FDA is because of some unknown potential side effects.

Here's a good article on it for those interested:

http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/andr...questid=512429

Here's a quote:

"McGwire may have hit 70 home runs in 1998, but the recent study suggests androstenedione was just a bystander. Researchers at Iowa State University tested the supplements on 20 healthy men as they undertook eight weeks of weight training. Ten of them, selected at random, took 300 milligrams of andro (slightly more than manufacturers generally recommend) each day for six weeks, while the other 10 unknowingly took a dummy pill made of rice flour. Throughout the training period, the two groups enjoyed the same gains in muscle bulk and strength. Either rice flour deserves a craze of its own, or andro is a bust.

Andro failed to live up to its billing in another important way: It didn't budge the subjects' testosterone levels."

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

After re-reading this thread, I think that what I have been trying to say has morphed as the argument changed. My primary statement is that McGwire did not take anything that enhanced his performance even remotely close to what steroids do. Andro has been proven to not have even remotely the same effect as anabolic steroids or HGH in increasing performance. So, what has frustrated me in this discussion is the grouping of taking Andro and Steroids as the same thing. To me, this is like saying someone that ate a poppy-seed muffin and another person that shot up with opium essentially were getting the same high.

If you go on the premise that McGwire did not use steroids (which I understand can be debated), then you are left only with the spectre of Andro. And, as I have stated, scientific studies have shown that Andro does not have a sliver of the performance enhancing capabilities of steroids or HGH. The only reason it is even being talked about by the FDA is because of some unknown potential side effects.

Here's a good article on it for those interested:

http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/andr...questid=512429

Here's a quote:

"McGwire may have hit 70 home runs in 1998, but the recent study suggests androstenedione was just a bystander. Researchers at Iowa State University tested the supplements on 20 healthy men as they undertook eight weeks of weight training. Ten of them, selected at random, took 300 milligrams of andro (slightly more than manufacturers generally recommend) each day for six weeks, while the other 10 unknowingly took a dummy pill made of rice flour. Throughout the training period, the two groups enjoyed the same gains in muscle bulk and strength. Either rice flour deserves a craze of its own, or andro is a bust.

Andro failed to live up to its billing in another important way: It didn't budge the subjects' testosterone levels."

That is a valid point, Andro is not as effective as the other anabolic steroids in current use--if it were, it would certainly be in more widespread use. However, the analogy to a pooppy seed muffin is not apt here. I think you are referring to the famed 1999 JAMA study. The authors of that study, while claiming that the effects of Andro were not substantial, still characterized the effects as that of a weak anabolic steroid. Also, there were other criticisms of that particular study. The JAMA editorial accompanying the article also pointed out that the study primarily used men who had never weight trained before. The editorial stated that signifigant gains are typically made in the initial stages of a novice's weight training program whether they are taking supplements or not. Gains were found in the test and placebo groups. Thus the JAMA editorial critiques the study for questionable subject selection resulting in potential confounds to the study results...

I agree with many in the thread that McGwire didn't need steroids to improve performance, since his power was there his entire career. I wouldn't be surprised though if McGwire did use anabolics to heal himself from injury faster. McGwire lost significant portions of his seasons due to injury in most seasons after 1991. The one exception is that 97-99 stretch when he managed to play full seasons. Not coincidentally, that was the time period he was taking andro. Perhaps androstenedione was just what he needed to keep himself injury free...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I agree with many in the thread that McGwire didn't need steroids to improve performance, since his power was there his entire career. I wouldn't be surprised though if McGwire did use anabolics to heal himself from injury faster. McGwire lost significant portions of his seasons due to injury in most seasons after 1991. The one exception is that 97-99 stretch when he managed to play full seasons. Not coincidentally, that was the time period he was taking andro. Perhaps androstenedione was just what he needed to keep himself injury free...

Agreed. So, now, the bigger question is would using a substance that helps you heal quicker and avoid injury be comparable to "performance enhancing"? Back in the 60s and 70s players were shot up all the time with cortozone to keep playing (even through broken bones) - I see a parallel here.

I don't think that doing this is akin to using steroids as you are not gaining abilities you didn't have before, you are simply trying to stay healthy and get more use out of the ones you have. Again, this is all behind the backdrop that the drug is legal and allowed by the sport.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

Agreed. So, now, the bigger question is would using a substance that helps you heal quicker and avoid injury be comparable to "performance enhancing"? Back in the 60s and 70s players were shot up all the time with cortozone to keep playing (even through broken bones) - I see a parallel here.

I don't think that doing this is akin to using steroids as you are not gaining abilities you didn't have before, you are simply trying to stay healthy and get more use out of the ones you have. Again, this is all behind the backdrop that the drug is legal and allowed by the sport.

I still disagree with you about this not being the same as using steroids, since andro is still a steroid, albeit one that is not as effective as others in use. Remember, whether the product is Andro or some other anabolic steroid, the product has multiple uses: some people will use it to build muscle, others will use it to heal from injuries. Whatever purpose you are using it for, it is still using. Some people binge drink alcohol to be social, others drink alone in the dark to dull the pain--both groups are abusing whatever the purpose.

You do raise a good point about the permissibility of appropriate levels of anabolic steroids to heal from injury--in that case it could be considered a rehabilitation treatment. As I have said before, I'm not really opposed to the use of anabolic steroids in any case. My only issue is that if we are going to out athletes who are using in the context of steroids being illegal, then we should go after all of them, not just the players that the press doesn't like.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

My only issue is that if we are going to out athletes who are using in the context of steroids being illegal, then we should go after all of them, not just the players that the press doesn't like.

I feel the same way. But, I think the press (as a whole) also tends to go towards where the evidence leads. There were numerous witnesses, the whole Balco testimony, the big swings in production and some health/size issues that made Giambi and Bonds much more likely targets than guys like Palmiero and McGwire. The media in NY loved Giambi, yet they had no problem going after him once the whole Balco thing came out.

If Victor Conte came out tomorrow and said he sold drugs to McGwire, you can bet the media would run with that in the same manner they did with Giambi and Bonds. The problem right now is there just isn't enough data/witnesses to make a compelling case against McGwire. If that were to change, the media's tune would as well.

[kparker15]

I would like to comment on this thread and drugs in baseball in general. Some very good points are made here. My background is a physical therapist and now orthopedic surgery with a sports medicine emphasis. Consider the following:

Here are Bonds HR totals up until his record setting season (73 HR)

16, 25, 24, 19, 33, 25, 34, 46, 37 33 42 40 37 34 49

I have researched many issues of steroid/enhancing agents. Bonds' average HR for his first 15 years in the league was 33. Analyzing this data will tell you that random chance does in no way account for a 40 HR, one season improvement after being in the league 16 years and being in your late 30's.

The point is, numbers do not lie. Players can deny everything. You must look at these numbers as objective evidence that Bonds was using enhancing agents. His face now has a cushingoid appearance (stay-puff marshmallow man). This is a common effect of chronic steroid use.

Arles, obviously you are a Big Mac fan as am I. Look at his numbers as well and you will see a similar pattern.

Your comparison of protein and andro, while well thought, is just not accurate. Your andro study quote is not significant when you see the sample size, the lack of randomization or randomized controlled trials on multiple populations. For this study, there are many others that say the contrary. In medical research, you cannot formulate an opinion on one study of 20 subjects.

I would say Canseco is more accurate than not and this has been mine and my colleagues thoughts all alone. This era of baseball will probably be remembered historically as the "juiced era".

[Arles]

I really don't disagree with the general tone of your post. But I don't agree with the conclusion you made based upon the numbers. Because of the variability in plate appearances per season due to injuries and other factors, I prefer to look at AB/HR. For Bonds from 1986 to 2000 (the years you cite), his AB/HR ratio was 15.1. In 2001, he had a ratio of 6.5. That's a change of about 8.6 - pretty major when looking at his career as a whole.

For McGwire, his AB/HR ratio from 1986 to 1997 was 11.6. In 1998, he had a ratio of 7.4. That's a difference of about 4.

Given the change in ERAs between the late 80s and the late 90s, I could see a change in 4 from someone's career average. But 8.6 seems out of bounds.

To the Andro question, I'd be real interested in finding a recent study that shows Andro has a legit performance enhancing effect on men under the age of 40. I've found a few on google and none were able to come to that conclusion. The most assertive one stated that there was a definite effect on women, but that because younger men already have a high level of Testosterone the drug did little to change that.

[kparker15]

On the andro question. essentially, andro is a natural steroid hormone found in all plants and some animals. It is metabolized in the liver as testosterone. Steroids are, in effect, testosterone derivatives.

Plasma levels of testoterone increased from 140% to 330% after 50 to 100mg doses.

The effects are similar to steroids i.e. increased energy, enhanced recovery and growth from exercise.

It is now banned by the IOC, NCAA, NFL

You are absolutely correct in saying that it is baseballs fault for not banning this substance sooner.

I will be happy to PM you a list of articles on enhancing drugs.

On your numbers, Bonds has a 57% change and Big Mac a 36% change. I do not know the significance of this becuase I have not analyzed this data. (nor do I care to). However, at first glance, these numbers seem significant considering both players should have been on the downside of their career.

Mac was more consistent and put up dramatic numbers in the early part of his career. These numbers still do not approach what he did in 98 and 99. In my opinion, a 36% increase from where he was to begin with is significant. Especially considering he was in his late 30's.

[Arles]

Here's Mac's last four full seasons prior to hitting 70: 42, 39, 52, 58

Here's Bonds' last four full seasons prior to hitting 73: 40, 37, 34, 49

Given that McGwire was only 34 during the 1998 season and Bonds was 37 in the 2001 season, I don't see McGwire's 98 season as being all that out-of-whack from a stat standpoint. A 34-year old power hitter getting 12 more HRs from his prior season and 21 more than his rookie season is not all that odd IMO. However, having a 37-year old getting 24 more HRs than his previous career high is definately out-of-wack.

As to Andro, I will definately concede to you on the issue as it is obvious you know much more about this than me. I just find it odd that if it provided such a benefit why very few in MLB ever used it. Supplements like Creatine and drugs like Steroids were significantly more popular than Andro was in MLB during the mid-90s.

[kparker15]

I agree on Macs numbers. He was more of a power hitter. I still think that the two seasons before his record were excellent. He almost broke the record the year before. I think the fact that he did hit 12 more homers (which is a lot of HR and a 17% increase) is suspect. Couple that with his body changes. Not just his size, but other changes as well (acne, ect.).

I am a big mac fan, an enjoyed the '98 season. I think the bottom line of the discussion is that Mac was taking enhancement drugs, some were not banned, some may have been. We will never know the answer to the later. But IMO, the evidence is obvious. The numbers could be an argument to chance, but the bodily changes, the admission to andro when coupled with the inflation of numbers are too suspicious.

Quote
"As to Andro, I will definately concede to you on the issue as it is obvious you know much more about this than me. I just find it odd that if it provided such a benefit why very few in MLB ever used it. Supplements like Creatine and drugs like Steroids were significantly more popular than Andro was in MLB during the mid-90s."

I really do not know how many MLB players used andro during that time. As far as popularity goes, I am not sure which supplements/drugs were more popular.

Steroids are more common in athletics than many of you think. I played college football in 1990 and 91. There were a ton of guys on our team that used steroids. They knew how to cycle them for testing purposes. We would have guys coming in that would gain 20-30 lbs of muscle in one summer. They would be loaded with acne, faces swollen. You knew what they were doing.

Good discussion.

[Arles]

Yeah, there was a great article a while back about the prevalence of steroids in college football going back to the early 70s. Back then, trainers would actually shoot up players as part of a weekly routine as it was not banned at the time.

[Draft Dodger]

Mike Greenwell wants Canseco's 88 MVP award.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1993112

(and comes across looking like a bigger douchebag than Canseco)

[WrongWay]

Untill someone can answer a straight question you have to believe they are talking out their asses. Why would they not scream it form the roofs "I have never taken steroids"?

Instead you get answers that leave you scratching your head:
Mark McGwire did you take steroids?
"I have always told the truth and I am saddened that I continue to face this line of questioning."

Do you think they are not hearing the "Yes" or "No" question correctly? Nowhere can you find Bonds or Mcgwire give a straightforward answer.

[Arles]

you must have missed this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...sing+steroids+

2/13/05:
"Once and for all," McGwire said a statement released to the Post-Dispatch, "I did not use steroids or any other illegal substance."


I was looking through some old articles and here's a great Q&A from Mac back in 1998:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...iew/qanda.html

Some excerpts:

"SI: You've probably heard the steroid rumor, especially when you were hurt: 'Oh, he's breaking down because of steroids.' Is that something you experimented with?

MM: Never. No. Of course, I know something about it. But I never experimented with it. It sort of boggles my mind when you hear people talking in those words. I mean, I work hard at what I do to be the best that I can be, and that's all I know to do. "

"SI: Last year a lot was made of you and Jose Canseco getting back together in Oakland—a Bash Brothers reunion. What's your relationship with Jose?

MM: I respect what he's done in the game. Then again, personally, I can't say that I really know him. I wish Jose Canseco had learned to appreciate the game and play as hard as I do. If he did, there's no question in my mind he would have half a dozen MVP trophies."

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by Arles

2/13/05:
"Once and for all," McGwire said a statement released to the Post-Dispatch, "I did not use steroids or any other illegal substance."

I guess that is pretty straight forward.

I read the entire Post article, and I like the "Snip" statement from McGwire, Although I would of love to of seen the entire unedited statement.

[Swaggs]

Giambi had never done them either, until he was questioned under oath.

[Arles]

I think the problem that guys like McGwire and Palmiero have is that they don't gain much by repeatedly answering these questions. If you seriously believe that Mac used steroids (which many people do), is there anything he can realistically say to change your mind? I seriously doubt it. So all he or Rafael do by continually answering these questions is keep these stories in the news for longer cycles.

If you assume that no hard evidence or additional witness testimony is coming on this issue with Mac, then either you believe he used steroids or you don't. And nothing that is said by Mac or Palmiero is going to convince you otherwise.