If the Media likes you, if you’re approachable, if you’re always smiling and looking like you’d be a cool guy to hang out with? You’re going to get a pass on all your past bad stuff. I’ll throw a couple names out here that i’m thinking of: Ivan Rodriguez, Michael Morse, Ray Lewis, David Ortiz, Miguel Cabrera, Junior Seau before his tragic death. Meanwhile; there’s athletes who are surly, who shun the media, who don’t “play their game” and I think that past “bad” behaviors become the leading point when talking about their legacy. I’m thinking of Bonds, Clemens, etc.

What do you think?

Check out this link; its a list of every baseball player linked with any PED rumor, admitted or not: http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/bse-list-steroid-hgh-users-baseball.html

It only seems to be current to 2010 though. But there’s names on here that always surprise me. Rick Ankiel apparently ordered HGH just before it was banned. Our own broadcast JP Santangelo was outed by Radomski in the Mitchell report.

Alex Rodriguez has always been a lightening rod but he was never involved in anything remotely close to the murder chargers Ray Lewis faced but people pile on him left and right. These reporters that say he should retire and let the Yankees keep their money are foolish. Even if he is suspended he can serve the suspension on the DL and then still has 4 and 2/3 seasons left on his contract. He actually played at a pretty solid level last season. Not $25-30 mil per season good but he was the 8th most valuable 3rd baseman in baseball. So many national writers are lazy.

I think why more people don’t know about the Morse suspension is because it was 2005. The penalties were so much more lax then and it didn’t make as big of headlines as it does now. That and Morse was simply a prospect and not an all star at the time. I think you are right that many people will brush Gio’s PED story aside because of his disposition. He and Morse are both likeable and very approachable and thats rare these days.

I’ll admit it; when i think of Michael Morse I do not remember he has a PED past. Maybe the same will be true of Gio. Because he’s open with the media and is always smiling on camera, people want to cut him a break. Most of the stories i’ve read have gone out of their way to say that the “evidence” on Gio isn’t as strong as against the others.

Yes it would suck to find out that Gio cheated but no real evidence has been presented and there are already “fans” slamming him for it.

Look again: the standard for prohibited performance-enhancing substances is “anabolic androgenic steroids” or “agents with antiestrogenic activity.” All of the enumerated (listed) substances are examples of that kind of substance, with those chemical properties. So, if you find a substance that has those chemical properties, it is already forbidden by rule, even if not listed.

Compare Section 2(B) with a more familiar rule: Official Rule 8.02(a), that governs ball-tampering by a pitcher [http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2012/Official_Baseball_Rules.pdf ]:

Notice that Rule 8.02(a)(5) says that the ball must not be “deface[d]…in any manner.” Rules 8.02(a)(1) through (4) list all the ENUMERATED ways that the ball must not be defaced. Part (a)(5) gives a general rule (don’t deface the ball). So 1 through 4 constitute a non-exhaustive list of prohibited acts, and 5 a general prohibition. As for pitchers and baseballs, so with players and biochemistry.

The wording of the list as you point out would be shredded by any competent defense attorney. How can you hold someone accountable for a list that admits that it is “non-exhaustive?” But it doesnt’ matter; we’re not talking about a court of law here; we’re talking about a contract between two private entities (MLB and the player’s union) that operates outside the court of law. And thankfully so for the owners of baseball, who have inexplicably enjoyed anti-trust exemption for the better part of a centry at the (in my opinion) distinct disadvantage to players and fans. But that’s probably outside the scope here.

First, the list incorporates by reference “all anabolic and androgenic steroids covered by Schedule III of the Code of Federal Regulations’ Schedule of Controlled Substances.” That’s an badly-drafted way of referring to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13, which broadly forbids “any material, compound,mixture or preparation containing any quantity of [any anabolic steroid], including its salts, esters and ethers.”

Second, the list of androgenic and antiestrogenic hormones in Section 2(B) is, by its own terms, “non-exhaustive.” That means that there exist substances that would fall within the prohibited substance list that are not specifically named on that list.

Third, the criteria for prohibition are that the substance be “anabolic androgenic steroids” or “[anabolic androgenic] agents with antiestrogenic activity.” So, if the substance ticks either of those boxes, chemically, it’s banned by the terms of Section 2(B).

Not looking good; as is mentioned in the Natsradamus article, if you look closely at the online docs Gonzalez’s name appears next to an order for “cream,” which by inference is a testosterone-laden balm. The newpaper has stated that it actually withheld some names in the documents because they felt there wasn’t enough to tie the players to PEDs. Which thus implies that there IS enough to tie Gonzalez to a PED. Awesome.

It does not address your question (which I’ve asked in the past as well) about which drugs are “good” and which drugs are “bad.”

http://natstradamus.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/the-trial-of-gio-gonzalez/ posted today; I like this guy’s stuff; he posts well thought out opinions, often times with good science/math/research behind it.