MLB: ARod Tested Positive for Steroids in '03
- Thread starter AIT
- Start date
Thats more like it...
Anyhow, this is NOT going to go well for MLB from a financial perspective. Those tests in '03 were supposed to be a completely anonymous survey to show what kind of problem there was and in no way have names attached. I have heard that there will be some major legal ramifications from the league towards the players for breaching the contact and invasion of privacy and it could total around $5 mill to EVERY PLAYER TESTED, not just the ones who tested positive...
I wouldn't be surprised if he did in college, that Okie State program is/was SHADY...
So, should I be concerned about Josh Fields too? :wink:
One last note on the White Sox......the 2003 tests were the ones that Kelly Wunsch and something like half the Sox players refused to take to try and push it over the 5% threshold for mandatory testing, since a refusal would count as a positive.
It would make sense. I don't believe he was a "can't miss" prospect when in the minors. He kind of came out of nowhere. Seemed kind of strange to me that he went from the 402nd pick in the 99 draft and then the ROY in 2001. Then throw on top some of his "back" and "hamstring" injuries as well.
It's not uncommon for STL Cardinals to be doing the juice (McGwire & Ankiel).
:biglaugh:
I think my old favorite player may have been trying the wrong drug(s) for performance enhancement.
Darryl Strawberry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I was young and he was a big name coming to the Dodgers at a good time. He may have been the start of the curse for LA signing big names to big contracts that they ended up eating.)
Darryl Strawberry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I was young and he was a big name coming to the Dodgers at a good time. He may have been the start of the curse for LA signing big names to big contracts that they ended up eating.)
Now if you actually watched Pujols, you'd see he's a great all around hitter. He'll hit the ball to any side of the field. He isn't swinging for the fences every time, like McGwire, Ankiel, etc.
Pujols uses the entire field and is going to go with the pitch, instead of trying to pull it every time (like McGwire, Ankiel, etc). Now, I'm not saying he couldn't have juiced as I have no idea. What I am saying is that he's a great ball player regardless of it. He does the little things that a mediocre player doesn't do. He isn't batting .240 and jacking up 50 homeruns every year.
Steroids don't control the fact that he walked 104 times last year and only struck out 54 times. Something else you have to look at is Pujols is consistently towards the top of the league number of hits and doubles.
If Pujols did juice, I wouldn't attribute that to being a good player. He does so many of the right things that some hitters only wish they could do. I would attribute it to being able to possibly recover quickly. At the same time, I haven't seen him slim down since the steriod policy like Aramis Ramirez, Jason Varitek, Todd Helton, etc, did.
Scouts are often times dead wrong when they evaluate prospects. They look at the wrong things. They get obssesed with combine type things, but don't actually look at how they play the game.
I notice a lot of Latin American prospects go under the radar like this. Albert did go in the 13th round of the draft that is correct but he was rated the #42 prospect by Baseball America in 2001. Now if you can get in the top 100, you're pretty good. It wasn't like he wasn't ranked. But since you'll all about high touted, lets look at some others:
- Johan Santana #51 prospect in Baseball America in 2003 - Undrafted signed by the Astros in 1995. Marlins acquired in Rule 5 draft in 1999. Later that day traded to the Twins for Jared Camp (the Marlins also gave the Twins cash)... Was everyone wrong on Santana? Possibly. He did learn his changeup in the Twins minor league system though.. He developed into a great pitcher
- Hanley Ramirez #30 prospect in 2006 by Baseball America- Undrafted signed by the Boston Red Sox in 2000. Trade to the Marlins in 2005 as part of the Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell trade... Became ROY and is a great SS
- Miguel Tejada #10 prospect in 1998 - Undrafted signed by the As in 1993. Went on to win MVP and get multiple All-Star game births
- Vlad Guerrero #9 prospect in 1996 - Undrafted signed by Expos in 1993. Likely going into the HOF
Lets look at some of the "top prospects" from Baseball America:
I'll go top 10 from 2000, 2001, and 2002
- 2000
- Ankiel (as a pitcher)
- Pat Burrell
- Corey Patterson
- Vernon Wells
- Nick Johnson
- Ruben Mateo
- Sean Burroughs
- Rafael Furcal
- Ryan Anderson
- John Patterson
- Noticeable "misses" in your point of view: Lance Berkman #36, Barry Zito #41, CC Sabathia # 57, Ben Sheets #65, Jimmy Rollins #95
- 2001
- Josh Hamilton - sort of panned out. We'll see though
- Corey Patterson
- Josh Beckett
- Jon Rauch
- Ben Sheets
- Sean Burroughs
- CC Sabathia
- Ryan Anderson
- Ichiro
- Nick Johnson
- Noticeable "misses" - Jake Peavy #40, Pujols #42, Carlos Zambrano #68, Carl Crawford #72, Miguel Caberera #91
- 2002
- Josh Beckett
- Mark Prior
- Hank Blalock
- Sean Burroughs
- Carlos Pena
- Juan Cruz
- Joe Mauer
- Wilson Betemit
- Drew Henson
- Mark Teixeira
- "Misses" - Victor Martinez #97, Eric Byrnes #91, Erik Bedard #90, Orlando Hudson #81, Carlos Zambrano #80, Miguel Cabrera #38
As you can see they get about half of the top 10 right. You can also see in the "misses" that guys tend to move up each each. Albert was ranked at #42. He made progress that was shown in Spring Training and the Cards needed him in the majors.
Had he spent another year in the Minors, he would've been rated very highly the following year. You gotta look at the whole story and the big picture...
I'm with you on this. I really don't care that much. I'm more offended that everyone wants to attack the players, when it's obvious that baseball heads were turning a blind eye to it all. I look at all sports as trying to gain a competetive advantage. Players, coaches and owners will do whatever they can to gain an advantage. If you don't, as a league, come out and say, "This is not permitted, you will be banned" Then it's considered a legitimate way to get ahead. I'm sure there are plenty of guys like me, that really feel the honest way is the only way, but when your livelyhood depends not only on you getting better, but your teammates, I suppose, even for those who didn't juice, turning a blind eye was what you had to do.
Really, my only problem is that baseball wasn't doing anything about it. I don't like the fact that guys were doing it. I don't like the fact that it is in every pro sport. At the end of the day though, as long as the game is entertaining, that's all I really care about. And don't get me wrong, I know I'll get attacked, I left a lot of things open ended, but really it comes down to how clean the league wants to be. We all know it's going on, we all knew it was going on, at the end of the day though, it's up to the league to enforce it.
I don't know that Pujols has done anything since reaching the majors but I am pretty sure he did in junior college. His whole JC program had a reputation for it...
Exactly. It happened more as a product of the league wanting to remain poular. Fans like higher scoring games like football and basketball (they were starting to be more popular than baseball and for sure football is now). Because of this, fans want to see homeruns.
The league wants to do whatever to ensure there are homeruns. So, it's all function of that. Players juice, hit more bombs, fans are happy and buy tickets, and then the owners are happy because they're getting paid because of it.
People will say "now there is no credibilty to the game and the records shouldn't stand".. Well what say those people to lowering of the mounds, changing the way they make the balls, and bringing the fences in? Many ballparks now-a-days are created to produce more homeruns. You don't have to hit a 450 foot bomb to be a homerun anymore. There is no standard as to where the stadium has to be built or what the dimensions of that are.
What about the utter lack of pitching in baseball now? Back in the day there would be 9 or 10 teams in the league and there were better pitchers.
To be honest, you can't compare eras anyways because of all these factors. Did A-Rod, Bonds, etc, juice? Yes. But it seems that almost everyone was as well. I still don't question whether A-Rod or Bonds are a couple of the best players of the era. The HOF is as much about your peer group (perhaps even more so) than compared to historical numbers. You still have only 24-25 guys that hit over 500 career HRs even with the juice. I don't think anything should be taken away from them. If you don't think they are great, how come so many juicers like Glenallen Hill, or Jack Cust didn't put up similar numbers? If you're one of the best of your generation, you are a HOF player. They technically didn't break any league rules at the time, so they should be in.
Also, don't discount the fact that pitchers were doing this as well. Some of the advantage hitters may have been getting are in many ways offset by the fact that pitchers arms' are more lively later in the game, season, and careers.
Bottom line:
Giants fans wanted to see Bonds in the field every day. They also wanted to see the team score tons of runs. In many ways the league turned a blind eye to make sure these things happened, because it's all about product.
As a kid, I used to be PISSED if Kirby Puckett wasn't in the lineup when I went to the few games I did.
I have a lot more respect for players now and understand the long season, the need for a day off, etc., but many fans don't. If they're paying high dollar amounts, they WANT to see A-Rod and they WANT to see him go yard.
The league gave fans what they wanted to see. The fans are now dissapointed it wasn't all natural, so now they are mad. Sometimes people need to look in the mirror a little bit.
Last edited:
See Alex Rodriguez, and we all know how THAT turned out...
Griffey, Pujols, A-Rod, and Carlos Beltran have beautiful swings :yes:
I really don't see the big deal with steroid use in baseball. Take hitting for example. Steroids might make someone stronger/hit the ball farther, but it is not going to give them talent to see and hit the ball. Yes, it can effect home run records, possibly, but the players using still have a talent that I will never have.
For example, I could go on a steroid/workout binge, but that wouldn't make me a great baseball player because I can't hit a 90 mph fastball regardless of what drugs I am on.
For example, I could go on a steroid/workout binge, but that wouldn't make me a great baseball player because I can't hit a 90 mph fastball regardless of what drugs I am on.
I don't like this argument as justification for taking steroids. The major point is that they do enhance your ability to react, heal etc., how much talent you had previous to taking the drugs should not be relevant.
For example, say I am a 5.5 40-yard dash guy, and I take the drugs. If the drugs improve my time to 5.0, the drugs enhanced my performance. The same as if I was a 4.5 guy that took drugs and dropped my time to 4.0.
My point is that it does not matter where you start, taking the drugs enhances your God given talent and that is cheating!
I'll disagree, if PED's help players recover faster than to me its going to help them hit the ball more for average. The difference of one hit per week goes a long ways in the bigs.
Its not a going to make you or me a MLB'er but its a huge difference for a kid in the minors
Talent is always relevant in any sport. You have to have talent, or tens of years of dedicated practice to be the best at a sport. Drugs wont do it for you.
Quote from a site meant for teens about the use of steroids.
"However, research has not shown that steroids improve skill, agility, or athletic performance."
Are Steroids Worth the Risk?
