When Soriano comes back up - who goes down?

[Clem Fandango]

It's common speculation, test or no test. Sorry.

 

Fixed. It can't be common knowledge because no one has the knowledge that he ever actually did anything (or at least come forward with it)

[shnsajax]

It's common knowledge, test or no test. Sorry.

 

No it isn't. Sorry.

 

You have to be kidding.

 

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[Roast]

It's common knowledge, test or no test. Sorry.

 

No it isn't. Sorry.

 

You have to be kidding.

Not at all.

 

There have been multiple steriod reports to come out, to date, and he hasn't appeared on one.

 

The best evidence they have against him is when someone allegedly overheard him talking about what he'd do if they banned amphetamines - something that has been used in baseball for decades.

 

The only evidence anyone has is that he bulked up after a couple of years in the big leagues. Which of course could have nothing to do with the fact that he went from being a mal-nourished teenager from the dominican republic to a well-known gym-rat when he made it to the big leagues.

 

It's interesting - and this is something I didn't know until last week: My biology&physics of sports professor was talking about the effect of steroids in class the other day and apparently any amount of muscle/bulk that steroids help you build can be built by just spending hours in the weight room. So - basically, having freaking massive arms (which, sammy did) does not mean he used roids. It would however mean that he had to spend an absolute ton of time in the gym. Which seems to be exactly what everyone says about him.

 

 

So is there a reason to suspect he did roids? Sure - there's a reason to suspect everyone in the past 10-15 years has roided up at some point. But to this point there has been absolutely zero credible evidence against Sammy, so it's just as reasonable to say that "hey, maybe he didnt"

[Guest]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

[Roast]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

This.

[CuseCubFan69]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

 

 

Sam will always be in a lose, lose even bigger scenario. He's going to have to prove he didn't do roids, show documentation of his workout schedule and then he might be considered clean but the chances are he never will be able to do so.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

 

 

Sam will always be in a lose, lose even bigger scenario. He's going to have to prove he didn't do roids, show documentation of his workout schedule and then he might be considered clean but the chances are he never will be able to do so.

 

Given that he was a proven cheater whose statistical profile fits a PED user almost perfectly, I'm okay with that.

[Guest]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

 

 

Sam will always be in a lose, lose even bigger scenario. He's going to have to prove he didn't do roids, show documentation of his workout schedule and then he might be considered clean but the chances are he never will be able to do so.

 

Given that he was a proven cheater whose statistical profile fits a PED user almost perfectly, I'm okay with that.

I don't think I can agree with this. As a society we should not take anyone who has made one mistake or done one wrong thing and forever accuse them of being guilty of anything else if they fit the "profile". Profiling the general populace is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent for people with a history isn't right, either. It is reason enough to suspect him, I'm okay with that. But saying you're okay with the burden of proof being on him I can't go along with.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Given that he was a proven cheater whose statistical profile fits a PED user almost perfectly, I'm okay with that.

I don't think I can agree with this. As a society we should not take anyone who has made one mistake or done one wrong thing and forever accuse them of being guilty of anything else if they fit the "profile". Profiling the general populace is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent for people with a history isn't right, either. It is reason enough to suspect him, I'm okay with that. But saying you're okay with the burden of proof being on him I can't go along with.

 

That's cool, this is clearly a matter of opinion.

 

Guilty until proven innocent is a matter of law, not public opinion. It's not designed to get the maximum percentage of casese correct, it's designed to make sure that the errors are rarely wrongful convictions, even if wrongful acquitals become more likely.

 

There's certainly not enough evidence for anyone official to do anything to Sosa, were there still punishment possible, but if I'm being asked to evaluate the likelihood that Sosa used PEDs, I think the proven willingness to break rules for perceived advantage and the statistical profile is enough to push me over the 50% mark.

[apete6]

Given that he was a proven cheater whose statistical profile fits a PED user almost perfectly, I'm okay with that.

I don't think I can agree with this. As a society we should not take anyone who has made one mistake or done one wrong thing and forever accuse them of being guilty of anything else if they fit the "profile". Profiling the general populace is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent for people with a history isn't right, either. It is reason enough to suspect him, I'm okay with that. But saying you're okay with the burden of proof being on him I can't go along with.

 

That's cool, this is clearly a matter of opinion.

 

Guilty until proven innocent is a matter of law, not public opinion. It's not designed to get the maximum percentage of casese correct, it's designed to make sure that the errors are rarely wrongful convictions, even if wrongful acquitals become more likely.

 

There's certainly not enough evidence for anyone official to do anything to Sosa, were there still punishment possible, but if I'm being asked to evaluate the likelihood that Sosa used PEDs, I think the proven willingness to break rules for perceived advantage and the statistical profile is enough to push me over the 50% mark.

 

Proven cheater? Those were batting practice bats with cork, duh :roll:

 

I am probably in line with Tim on this one, however. He may have done it. Hell, he probably did it, but with the way the hammer has come down on everyone, including McGwire and Bonds, I find it interesting that no one has nailed Sosa with even a suspicion of buying/using.

 

Granted, a lot of the use/training may have come in the Dominican Republic where most reporters/investigators might not go or have an in, but for no one to come out and say "I used with him" or "I heard a conversation he had about doing them," I am going to give Sammy the benefit of the doubt.

[Guest]

Given that he was a proven cheater whose statistical profile fits a PED user almost perfectly, I'm okay with that.

I don't think I can agree with this. As a society we should not take anyone who has made one mistake or done one wrong thing and forever accuse them of being guilty of anything else if they fit the "profile". Profiling the general populace is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent for people with a history isn't right, either. It is reason enough to suspect him, I'm okay with that. But saying you're okay with the burden of proof being on him I can't go along with.

 

That's cool, this is clearly a matter of opinion.

 

Guilty until proven innocent is a matter of law, not public opinion. It's not designed to get the maximum percentage of casese correct, it's designed to make sure that the errors are rarely wrongful convictions, even if wrongful acquitals become more likely.

 

There's certainly not enough evidence for anyone official to do anything to Sosa, were there still punishment possible, but if I'm being asked to evaluate the likelihood that Sosa used PEDs, I think the proven willingness to break rules for perceived advantage and the statistical profile is enough to push me over the 50% mark.

Hey, I've got no problem with you personally deciding to believe he did PED's based on what you perceive. I simply think it is wrong to make public accusations or to claim that the burden of proof should be on him based on that.

 

I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty is for criminal proceedings and why it was put into place. However, I'm also a big fan of the principle in general. I personally don't care for "public opinion" that is formed from a profile or a guilty until proven innocent point of view. It smacks of McCarthyism and I believe it leads down dangerous paths when that logic is accepted by the public. Obviously, society won't be ruined by whether we think Sosa did PED's or not. But the principle, I believe, is an important one.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hey, I've got no problem with you personally deciding to believe he did PED's based on what you perceive. I simply think it is wrong to make public accusations or to claim that the burden of proof should be on him based on that.

 

I understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty is for criminal proceedings and why it was put into place. However, I'm also a big fan of the principle in general. I personally don't care for "public opinion" that is formed from a profile or a guilty until proven innocent point of view. It smacks of McCarthyism and I believe it leads down dangerous paths when that logic is accepted by the public. Obviously, society won't be ruined by whether we think Sosa did PED's or not. But the principle, I believe, is an important one.

couldn't agree more. I was always as big of a Sammy fan as there was, and I personally do not believe his growth was all natural. there's no proof I'm aware of that implicates him, and until there is he shouldn't have to "prove" his innocence.

[SouthSideRyan]

The statistical profile thing doesn't work for me. Sosa was always regarded as a guy with prodigous power potential. He entered his peak and hit a ton of HRs after hitting a lot of HRs in the years before. Then he went through his peak, hit his decline phase at an age appropriate time. His career line relative to the environment he was in isn't really that absurd.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The statistical profile thing doesn't work for me. Sosa was always regarded as a guy with prodigous power potential. He entered his peak and hit a ton of HRs after hitting a lot of HRs in the years before.

 

We're rehasing a debate that's been pretty thoroughly covered here, but I'm (happily) unemployed at the moment, so what the heck.

 

You're equivocating pretty nastily there. "A ton" and "prodigious" can mean a lot of things. He had good power potential and he had some good home run seasons, but neither the projections nor the previous seasons pointed to 66, 63, 50, 64.

 

He didn't enter his prime and start doing it, he was past where his prime "should" have started. Statistical prime is in the 25-29 range, and he showed a sort-of glimpse at 27 and turned it on at 29.

 

His pre-29 high BA, OBP and SLG (in different seasons) were 300, 339, 564. His post-29 high, when he already should have established the type of player he was, were 328, 437, 737. Those were quantum leaps to a completely new level of performance quite a bit past what he had ever shown before. Up until his age-29 season, he was following a perfectly normal development curve for a high-K power prospect, then suddenly and without warning he jumped into the stratosphere.

 

That's a very clear profile of a potential PED user, and seeing as it happened concurrently with a lot of admitted PED use, I think the profile is very clear. Can anyone point to any similar career paths outside of the recent era?

 

At age 28, his most comparable players from baseball-reference.com were Dale Murphy, Reggie Jackson, Jeff Burroughs, Tom Brunansky, Jimmy Wynn, Roger Maris, Jack Clark, Dave Winfield, Bobby Bonds, and Jesse Barfield. The only player on that list to take a major step forward was Jack Clark, who did it beginning at age 31 and nowhere near to the level of what Sosa did.

[Roast]

And this is exactly what I think the saddest part of this whole "steroid era" in baseball is. Not so much that one of the games greatest records is tainted, but rather the records that might actually be clean (60 hr in back to back years, for example) will always be assumed tainted and the players that may have been clean will be assumed tainted.

[Cansecos Roid Party]

He was always one of the first guests to show up and last ones to leave. Mr. Baseball is a good film.

[mul21]

It's interesting - and this is something I didn't know until last week: My biology&physics of sports professor was talking about the effect of steroids in class the other day and apparently any amount of muscle/bulk that steroids help you build can be built by just spending hours in the weight room. So - basically, having freaking massive arms (which, sammy did) does not mean he used roids. It would however mean that he had to spend an absolute ton of time in the gym. Which seems to be exactly what everyone says about him.

 

However, the reason most people can't ahieve that size on their own is that your muscles are unable to recover quickly enough for you to continue working out at the level required to get that big. Which is why a 30-40 pound muscle gain over a 4-6 year period isn't unusual, but when you do that in 2 years it's a bit unusual. Just an aside to the thought, not saying anything inparticular about Sammy, although I am of the opinion that he partook in something less than legal.

[mul21]

And this is exactly what I think the saddest part of this whole "steroid era" in baseball is. Not so much that one of the games greatest records is tainted, but rather the records that might actually be clean (60 hr in back to back years, for example) will always be assumed tainted and the players that may have been clean will be assumed tainted.

 

U said taint 3 times in 2 sentences. I found it funnier than I should have.

[Tyrant]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

 

His progression happened much more quickly than that. You could see a significant difference over the course of a year or two. He also had acne in his 30s, which is another sign of the steroid use.

[Rob]

1.) Sammy has never been implicated by any factual evidence.

 

2.) Following public opinion would be a lot more acceptable if the public weren't complete morons. See Also: "NASA faked the moon landing!", The Salem Witch Trials, Viva La Bam

[Sammy Sofa]

1.) Sammy has never been implicated by any factual evidence.

 

2.) Following public opinion would be a lot more acceptable if the public weren't complete morons. See Also: "NASA faked the moon landing!", The Salem Witch Trials, Viva La Bam

 

And "the government is lying about 9/11" and "LHO didn't shoot JFK alone."

[Ding Dong Johnson]

1.) Sammy has never been implicated by any factual evidence.

 

2.) Following public opinion would be a lot more acceptable if the public weren't complete morons. See Also: "NASA faked the moon landing!", The Salem Witch Trials, Viva La Bam

 

And "the government is lying about 9/11" and "LHO didn't shoot JFK alone."

and NASCAR

[bukie]

Sosa in 1995 (linked for huge):

http://homerderby.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/sosa-1995-card.jpg

 

Sosa in 1996:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:k_-RcmWR5MOC3M:http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Cards/006/823/09F.jpg

 

Sosa in 1998:

http://internetfm.com/gif/sosa1.jpg

 

Can't say I see a real marked difference in there. Can't find any images between 1990 and 1995, but it appears he did bulk up a bit in there.

[Guest]

To support the position that Sammy took roids, you'll often see a picture of him as a rookie and a picture of him 10-12 years later as a bulked-up slugger. What you don't see is a set of photos from each year that illustrate a progression in his physique from skinny to hulk. Of course, that takes more work and isn't as sensational/impactful.

 

His progression happened much more quickly than that. You could see a significant difference over the course of a year or two. He also had acne in his 30s, which is another sign of the steroid use.

Your first point strikes me as simply your recollection, which could be flawed. Human memories of this type of thing tend to get compressed and very colored by subsequent experience. If you're basing this on a series of photos, weight measurements or something like that, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence.

 

Your second point is hugely circumstantial and could be based on a wide variety of things other than steroids.

[Tyrant]

Sosa in 1995 (linked for huge):

Sosa in 1996:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:k_-RcmWR5MOC3M:http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Cards/006/823/09F.jpg

 

Sosa in 1998:

http://internetfm.com/gif/sosa1.jpg

 

Can't say I see a real marked difference in there.

 

You can't? Look at his legs.