Sammy Sosa and Steroids

[seanimal]

I really doubt much juicing was ever done in the actual clubhouse.

 

one would think not, but there are a lot of eyewitness accounts that seem to emanate from within rather than without.

[CubbieBum]

I really doubt much juicing was ever done in the actual clubhouse.

 

one would think not, but there are a lot of eyewitness accounts that seem to emanate from within rather than without.

 

Pills in a bottle could be anything.

[wade]

I really doubt much juicing was ever done in the actual clubhouse.

 

one would think not, but there are a lot of eyewitness accounts that seem to emanate from within rather than without.

 

Pills in a bottle could be anything.

 

meh, the pills are usually more toxic, I think that's why the majority inject.

[atcfootball]

Good to see everyone getting in on this topic, it's nice to hear everyone's opinions.

 

I guess one thing I look at also is before testing pictures and after testing pictures. I assume (always bad) he was not using steroids after testing started. If he was using, he would be really really stupid (which I do not feel was the case since nothing has come up on him) because that would have for sure ended any Hall of Fame chances for him and tear down everything he worked for if caught.

 

As for his gains in size, I do not doubt that it can happen naturally. I have spent the past five months (only one more to go) in Iraq. I go to the gym every day lifting weights and I have gained 18lbs in muscle (140 to 158). I do not use anything other then a protein shake and NO-Explode. I eat when I'm hungry about 3 meals a day. I have NO personal trainer (which I'm sure he has had), no meals designed to build me up and so on, that I would think he would have had (Diet, rest and weight training is the best way to gain size - from reading I have done). The more I work out the more I realize he very well could have gained weight and muscle the right way (clean). As far as head size I have no proof either way of a gain in this section of his body, but that would be easy to get if you know the right people (sports writers), as you could just find out what was his hat size when he first came up and what it is today, I would think that would be easy - but who knows!

 

However I do find his pictures after 04 and on to be just as impressive as when he was with the Cubs. The photo of his arms in the earlier post I have to think was after a workout. Based on most other photo's I have seen of him during the 98 through 03 seasons. Here are some photos of his days in Baltimore and Texas (2nd time around). Keep in mind also he was in his late 30's, from what I have read natural testosterone around this time is starting to get lower in the body.

 

1998

http://graphics.boston.com/images/bostondirtdogs//Headline_Archives/BDD_SS_MM_SI98.jpg

 

 

Years after the Cubs

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dMCVCOEiZoE/SK1e_gUzpZI/AAAAAAAABS4/0uvZLbhq0WQ/s400/sammy_sosa.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a230/dd51/sammy20sosa20baltimore20orioles.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/ethan_trex/02/14/left.field/p1_sosa.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/03/13/sports/13sosa583.jpg

 

Another thing I do find interesting is that NO major league team has taken a chance on him as a player (outside TX 1 year ago). Maybe they know something I (we) don't know? Just a random thought.

[wade]

atcfootball, a couple of things.

 

I see lots of people say that either

 

a. these guys aren't off the juice because they're not shrinking, or

b. some guys never took becuase now there's testing and they're not shrinking.

 

My response to this line of thinking is that people who use testosterone to increase muscle mass do not lose 100% of their gains if they stop taking it. Do you keep it all? No. But you don't go back to gettting sand kicked in your face a month after you stop, either.

 

Also, I understand your using evidence of yourself as the possibility to gain muscle (I use this type of evidence because it's what we know best, oftentimes). Anyway, in this instance it's probably not a good measuring stick when dealing with an elite athlete. Some have said Sosa may have been malnurished when he got to MLB, so let's throw him out of my argument. If we can use Bonds, for instance, I say comparing what me and you can do improvement-wise in the gym naturally is no indicator for for what an athlete can do. These guys, by the time they get to MLB, have very likely lifted weights for years. They also are already at the very high percentile genetically, as far as being fast, strong, etc., just by the fact that they are pro athletes. I would argue that for these reasons, it would be harder for them to see a sudden improvement in muscle mass than it would be for me, who never lifted weights, started, then saw results.

 

Plus, look at age. If you say you gained 18 pounds in Iraq, I might assume you are in the military and maybe less than 20 years old. If that's wrong, this next point won't make sense, but anyway, these guys are making gains in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties and it's much, much harder then because your body is for sure not just still growing. And, like you said, testosterone levels tend to go down as men age.

 

Anyway, it was a good post, but I felt like nitpicking.

[atcfootball]

Wade,

Great reply and I agree with some things, much like you (I assume) we both can agree that Sosa was probably using something that was NOT over the counter. I do feel that he was using something that was not on the up and up. He was a star player for years before becoming a superstar, something caused this change.

 

My response to this line of thinking is that people who use testosterone to increase muscle mass do not lose 100% of their gains if they stop taking it. Do you keep it all? No. But you don't go back to gettting sand kicked in your face a month after you stop, either.

I 100% agree with you on this, my only thinking (to be fair to Sosa) would be the TX picture was taken 2 years after the Cubs, (I think) 4 years after testing started. Look at the size of Giambi during his steroid years and his Non-steroids years, they are very telling of something. However I would like to say Giambi gives me the look of someone who never put a foot into the gym at all.

 

They also are already at the very high percentile genetically, as far as being fast, strong, etc., just by the fact that they are pro athletes. I would argue that for these reasons, it would be harder for them to see a sudden improvement in muscle mass than it would be for me, who never lifted weights, started, then saw results.

 

I'm very sorry for just taking a little quote of your whole, but just wanted to make one point about this part. The very fact that they are in the very hing percentile genetically could also be an argument for the ability to gain muscle fast and easy. As many things I have read say that genetic make-up play a huge part in weight lifting and muscle gain. Just my thoughts.

 

Plus, look at age. If you say you gained 18 pounds in Iraq, I might assume you are in the military and maybe less than 20 years old. If that's wrong, this next point won't make sense, but anyway, these guys are making gains in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties and it's much, much harder then because your body is for sure not just still growing. And, like you said, testosterone levels tend to go down as men age.

 

I was 33, turned 34 during my time here. I do agree with you that it's much harder to gain when your getting up in age! Most things I have read say a good way to keep that testosterone level high even as you age is to have had a good workout program during your life (young to old). Most say you can raise your testosterone by starting to workout as you age, but most seem to agree that you will NEVER get that "teen" level back if you didn't stat (and keep) your workout program at a young age.

 

Either way I know we are not going to figure out if Sosa used/didn't use, I just do find it intesting to talk about. The more I learn about the human body and growth the more I can see how it would be possible for Sosa not to use and still makes gains like he did. However that don't change my basic feeling that he did use. The sad part about this feeling is, we will never know the truth, unless it comes out (duhhh). Even if Sosa NEVER USED; he will always be guilty of using in the court of public opinion because he has no way to prove he did not use - to me that's kind of sad.

[wade]

Great post. Sorry I missed the guess on your age, I'm still older than you, just not nearly as much as I figured!

 

You're right in one respect, if anyone can get stronger, it's the genetically gifted (something I am def. not). But, I'd still wager the majority of these guys that go 'on' started out lifting in the first place- and lifting pretty hard at that. Giambi testified that he met guys at Gold's, if I recall, and locker room talk led to his start.

 

Anyway, I was just nitpicking, so I didn't disagree with much of what you said anyway.

 

I'm really on board with the last paragraph- this whole thing fascinates me as a baseball fan and a gymrat. I've never dabbled in steroids, but I've read up on them proabably as much as just about anyone for the reasons you said- interest in muscular growth, etc. and while I probably come across as an apologist, I realize they're wrong and it was against the rules. But, as many have said, there's all kinds of rule-breaking and this whole thing is very dramatic, what with HOF's named, the Feds closing in, etc.- just a very interesting story.

[EhDubya]

Ryne Sandberg averaged 15.5 homeruns a season for his first full 7 seasons, then entering his 30's, hit 30, 40 (!!!), 26 and 26 a year. THEN he started to breakdown and hit just 14 over the next two years before retiring, possibly to dodge drug-use suspicions.. Realizing that steroid testing was over a decade away, he came back and hit another 25 dingers. AND he most certainly put on 25+ lbs from his rookie season to his last season.

 

I don't have baseball card links to point to head size, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me- Sandberg must now be lumped into the "hmm, maybe he did do it, should we take him out of the HOF" crowd.

[wade]

Ryne Sandberg averaged 15.5 homeruns a season for his first full 7 seasons, then entering his 30's, hit 30, 40 (!!!), 26 and 26 a year. THEN he started to breakdown and hit just 14 over the next two years before retiring, possibly to dodge drug-use suspicions.. Realizing that steroid testing was over a decade away, he came back and hit another 25 dingers. AND he most certainly put on 25+ lbs from his rookie season to his last season.

 

I don't have baseball card links to point to head size, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me- Sandberg must now be lumped into the "hmm, maybe he did do it, should we take him out of the HOF" crowd.

 

I think you're being sarcastic, but one of the fallouts from the 'scandal' is that what you described is what will happen- guys with these huge outlier years will be scrutinized a little. And you know what, I'm for the most part cynical anyway, so I don't see a big problem with it.

 

Unless I have the guy on my fantasy team and he can't repeat the numbers.

[bcl412]

Ryne Sandberg averaged 15.5 homeruns a season for his first full 7 seasons, then entering his 30's, hit 30, 40 (!!!), 26 and 26 a year. THEN he started to breakdown and hit just 14 over the next two years before retiring, possibly to dodge drug-use suspicions.. Realizing that steroid testing was over a decade away, he came back and hit another 25 dingers. AND he most certainly put on 25+ lbs from his rookie season to his last season.

 

I don't have baseball card links to point to head size, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me- Sandberg must now be lumped into the "hmm, maybe he did do it, should we take him out of the HOF" crowd.

 

I think you're being sarcastic, but one of the fallouts from the 'scandal' is that what you described is what will happen- guys with these huge outlier years will be scrutinized a little. And you know what, I'm for the most part cynical anyway, so I don't see a big problem with it.

 

 

Unless I have the guy on my fantasy team and he can't repeat the numbers.

 

Baseball brought it upon itself and it is fair to question everyone.

[Rob]

Crap like outlier seasons, photos taken years apart and from altogether different angles, whether "he just looks like a juicer"... none of that is even remotely conclusive. If we don't have drug tests, doping schedules, receipts... some sort of hard, reliable evidence, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof should be on us if we want to accuse players of juicing. There is no way for them to prove that they didn't.

[wade]

Crap like outlier seasons, photos taken years apart and from altogether different angles, whether "he just looks like a juicer"... none of that is even remotely conclusive. If we don't have drug tests, doping schedules, receipts... some sort of hard, reliable evidence, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof should be on us if we want to accuse players of juicing. There is no way for them to prove that they didn't.

 

Most aren't talking about the court of law, but the court of public opinion. That's what the 'scandal' has done- opened up guys who get bigger and stronger and hit way more homers than usual to questions.

 

They definitely shouldn't, and probably won't ever, be punished unless there's some hard, reliable evidence.

[brinoch]

Crap like outlier seasons, photos taken years apart and from altogether different angles, whether "he just looks like a juicer"... none of that is even remotely conclusive. If we don't have drug tests, doping schedules, receipts... some sort of hard, reliable evidence, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof should be on us if we want to accuse players of juicing. There is no way for them to prove that they didn't.

 

Most aren't talking about the court of law, but the court of public opinion. That's what the 'scandal' has done- opened up guys who get bigger and stronger and hit way more homers than usual to questions.

 

They definitely shouldn't, and probably won't ever, be punished unless there's some hard, reliable evidence.

 

The problem with the court of public opinion here is that it is dominated by the usual sportswriting characters, like ESPN and such, who are more interested in gaining readers/viewers than they are in telling the full story. Obviously, there are many exceptions. But doesn't it seem that for every great article out there you have to wade through a ton of crap -- particularly where controversy is involved?

 

And, yes, I used wade there on purpose. I think it should be a new Board rule that when quoting a post from Wade, you have to topically use wade in your own post.

[wade]

Crap like outlier seasons, photos taken years apart and from altogether different angles, whether "he just looks like a juicer"... none of that is even remotely conclusive. If we don't have drug tests, doping schedules, receipts... some sort of hard, reliable evidence, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof should be on us if we want to accuse players of juicing. There is no way for them to prove that they didn't.

 

Most aren't talking about the court of law, but the court of public opinion. That's what the 'scandal' has done- opened up guys who get bigger and stronger and hit way more homers than usual to questions.

 

They definitely shouldn't, and probably won't ever, be punished unless there's some hard, reliable evidence.

 

The problem with the court of public opinion here is that it is dominated by the usual sportswriting characters, like ESPN and such, who are more interested in gaining readers/viewers than they are in telling the full story. Obviously, there are many exceptions. But doesn't it seem that for every great article out there you have to wade through a ton of crap -- particularly where controversy is involved?

 

And, yes, I used wade there on purpose. I think it should be a new Board rule that when quoting a post from Wade, you have to topically use wade in your own post.

 

Oh, I agree with you and I cited a Joe Sheehan article (def. not crap) from BP in either this or the A-Rod thread where he says these talking heads all missed the boat with this story back in the day either on purpose or from stupidity and they're trying to make up for it now be being as shrill as they can be. So, yeah, there's that crap to deal with.

 

At the same time, I don't like Clemens, and watching his ordeal has not only been dramatic, but enjoyable for me as well.

 

And, I like the board rule. I tried to return the favor, but brinoch doesn't offer much in the way of vocabulatory flexibility.

[brinoch]

Not too much indeed. That's why it is specific to you. (Note, I didn't quote you this time! I'm feeling uncreative.)

 

Oh, and Clemens ought to go down. Probably the thing that annoys me the most about A-Rod is that it deflected attention from the guy we KNOW has done steroids and lied about it to Congress: Tejada.

[wade]

Not too much indeed. That's why it is specific to you. (Note, I didn't quote you this time! I'm feeling uncreative.)

 

Oh, and Clemens ought to go down. Probably the thing that annoys me the most about A-Rod is that it deflected attention from the guy we KNOW has done steroids and lied about it to Congress: Tejada.

 

And Tejada interests me because technically his lie was to not give up info. on other players.

 

Clemens' took a hit recently because the judge threw out most of his defamation suit against MacNamara. Even one of the congressmen that was especially hard on Mac (called him a liar and drug dealer, pandering to Clemens) during the meeting is now saying Roger's full of it. Sadly, everyone else watching didn't need this long, but whatever.

[Rob]

Why is the new board rule specific to wade?

[brinoch]

Why is the new board rule specific to wade?

 

Because otherwise we'll have 10,000 posts talking about how they'd like the Cubs to rob the Padres for Peavy.

[Jehrico]

Why is the new board rule specific to wade?

 

Because otherwise we'll have 10,000 posts talking about how they'd like the Cubs to rob the Padres for Peavy.

Too late.

[brinoch]

Why is the new board rule specific to wade?

 

Because otherwise we'll have 10,000 posts talking about how they'd like the Cubs to rob the Padres for Peavy.

Too late.

 

Well, crap.

[weis21]

I was quite younger at the time, but if baseball was as "dead" as has been reported just before the Sosa-McGwire era, then I am glad that so many players took steroids.

 

I seriously doubt that baseball was in such dire times that without some "homerun chase" it would be dead in the water, but if that is indeed the case, then I would have paid for the drugs myself.

 

ETA (clarify): I'd much rather have A-Rod/Bonds/Clemens/etc. baseball steroid drama than no baseball at all.

[Rob]

I was quite younger at the time

 

Really? I was a few years older than I am now.

[weis21]

I was quite younger at the time

 

Really? I was a few years older than I am now.

What's even the point of this?

 

I was just saying that during the Sosa/McGwire period I was too young to truly gauge the overall state of MLB.

[Texas Goat Farmer]

I was quite younger at the time

 

Really? I was a few years older than I am now.

What's even the point of this?

 

I was just saying that during the Sosa/McGwire period I was too young to truly gauge the overall state of MLB.

 

 

Someone is reeeally young!

[Brett]

Ryne Sandberg averaged 15.5 homeruns a season for his first full 7 seasons, then entering his 30's, hit 30, 40 (!!!), 26 and 26 a year. THEN he started to breakdown and hit just 14 over the next two years before retiring, possibly to dodge drug-use suspicions.. Realizing that steroid testing was over a decade away, he came back and hit another 25 dingers. AND he most certainly put on 25+ lbs from his rookie season to his last season.

 

I don't have baseball card links to point to head size, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me- Sandberg must now be lumped into the "hmm, maybe he did do it, should we take him out of the HOF" crowd.

 

I think you're being sarcastic, but one of the fallouts from the 'scandal' is that what you described is what will happen- guys with these huge outlier years will be scrutinized a little. And you know what, I'm for the most part cynical anyway, so I don't see a big problem with it.

 

 

Unless I have the guy on my fantasy team and he can't repeat the numbers.

 

Baseball brought it upon itself and it is fair to question everyone.

That's the really unfortunate consequence of this whole thing. I feel like there is no one I CAN'T question.

 

Heck, I question Jose Macias now.