THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Didn’t you get the message?

HGH is one of the worst things a human being can do, as it violates the sanctity of records held by Pete Rose and others.

The pure evil happening here, to use your phrase, boggles the mind.

I have a friend who is a cop, and can dismiss tickets I get.  It’s legal (I guess) because he’s allowed to do such things as part of his job.  How did Ankiel legally get prescribed HGH?  I’d guess it was much in the same way that my friend legally dismisses tickets.  Some things are legal but just considered shady.  No one is saying he should go to jail as far as I know.  Just expressing disappointment in the virtue of his decisions.

MGL, you’re a great baseball analyst, but you expect an absurd level of forethought out of people in terms of the things they say and do, and the decisions they make.  GMs and managers are constantly interviewed and recorded, so they’re less-than-perfect moments are always available for the public to see.  You’re sort of in the same boat, having a blog.  I’d imagine that there’s some things I could find you wrote in archived posts that you regret, that came out wrong, or that were flat out incorrect.  Frankly, you come off as kind of curmudgeonly.

I’ve never written anything that I have later regretted.  I have done MANY things that…

And I AM a curmudgeoun, and proud of it.  Actually, not even close.  Arrogant, crass, impatient, yes.  Curmudgeounly, no.

As far as what Jocketty said, it was completely out of line.  For something that potentially serious and something that has and is going to garner so much publicity, he needed to be a lot more careful about what he said, assuming that he does regret what he said, or misspoke, or what have you.

The ONLY reasons why taking a PED as a baseball player would be wrong are: One, it is illegal, or two, it is against the rules.  If Ankiel got a legal prescription for HGH and did not take or possess it after the ban was instituted, then IMO, I see absolutely, 100% nothing wrong with what he did.

Again, I cannot even imagine what Jocketty meant or was thinking, unless he simply misunderstod the facts or something like that. Not to mention the fact that that is a hell of a thing to say about a player on your own team when that team is in a pennant race.

I agree that GM’s and other public figures are forced to say things off the cuff all the time, and that occasionally anyone would say something wrong or stupid, but I don’t put this into that category.  It was a REALLY stupid thing to say about something pretty important.

Jocketty is not a disinterested observer. He represents the StL ballclub, and believes it is better public relations to come off as totally against PEDs, even if Ankiel may not be actionably liable because of the things MGL mentions. So I don’t think WJ is irresponsible or stupid--I think he’s just doing his job as an advocate (or what he believes is the right thing to say in his position on a MLB team).

I am troubled by the notion that Ankiel is not “wrong” because he had a “legal prescription.”

The “prescription” was almost assuredly a sham.  Unlike other prescription medications, off-label prescription of HGH is illegal. 

Accepted medical uses of HGH in adults is limited to stuff like the treatment of the wasting syndrome of AIDS and growth hormone deficiency from pituitary disorders.  I am not aware that Ankiel suffers from such a valid condition. 

Unless Ankiel suffers from one of these valid conditions, it appears Ankiel knowingly sought to obtain HGH for an illicit use, athletic performance. 

While it is unlikely such a case would be pursued, soliciting someone else to commit a criminal act is to commit the crime of solicitation.

It is illegal to receive a prescription for anything if you haven’t seen the doctor. We don’t know that Ankiel did that, but that is the pattern behavior of the doctors investigated here. Also, according to steroid expert Gary Wadler and many others, there is virtually no need for a young male to need HGH for legit medical purposes. If that’s the case, that’s also illegal. We cannot prove illegality here (though I would bet the feds can and will when they prosecute all the folks associated with Siganture Pharmacy and the doctor in question), but in the court of public opinion we do not have to. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggests illegality and certainly immorality. Also, the fact that HGH was not considered against MLB’s rules as of 2005 is a disgrace.

Immoral?  Are you kidding? I am no doctor, but as far as I know there are a multitude of legitimate doctors who will prescribe HGH for middle age men who have low testosterone levels, as well as clinical symptoms, of which almost all middle age men do.  Of course that has nothing to do with Ankiel. 

The medical research seems to indicate that HGH, unlike steroids, is NOT performance enhancing, as far as I know. 

So if Ankiel did not break the law, did not break any MLB rules, and did not take any performance enhancing drugs, I fail to see how this is a baseball issue AT ALL.

If WJ is against PED’s???  Again, I don’t think that HGH is a PED.  And if it is, so are vitamins and a multitude of other legal, non-banned substances.  As far as I know, the only taboo against steroids as opposed to any other things a person can do or take to enhance their performance, is that it is banned by baseball and is illegal.  So far there is no allegation that Ankiel violated any rules or broke any laws.

I can’t believer someone above said “immoral.” What in the world does taking HGH prescribed by a doctor no less (or not), have anything to do with morals?  And what does ANYONE have against HGH?  Or steroids for that matter, other than the fact that they are currently against the rules and illegal without a prescription.  Is everything that is illegal immoral too?  Again, not that taking HGH is illegal.

Is smoking pot immoral too? If it is, I have a lot of immoral friends who are otherwise fine people. How about eating twinkies?  Is that immoral?  My son takes some crap he gets from the health food store to help him build muscles when he works out.  Is that immoral too?

Immoral?  Sheesh.

I think you’re ignoring what Phil and Jerome said.  He may very well have broken the law, prescription or not.  I’ll apologize if I’m wrong, but I don’t for one second believe that Ankiel suffers from any type of debilitating condition for which a typical person gets a prescription for HGH.  (and random side note: almost all men cannot have “low” anything.  Unless you mean lower T levels than they had when they were 18 - to which I say, is this really a “condition” requiring treatment?). 

We can argue whether it truly enhances performance or not, but that’s just not relevant in my eyes.  I think it does enhance performance, and I don’t fault him for breaking baseball’s rules, because it appears he at least purchased this stuff before it became against the rules.

What I fault him for is that in my estimation, (a) he thought it enhanced performance, (b) he does not/did not suffer from a medical condition that typically requires HGH for treatment, and (c) got a doctor to prescribe it to him so he could get better at baseball.

In short, he may have broken the law (according to Jerome), he may have broken MLB’s rules (if his 2004 year-long shipment lasted him into 2005), and he took what may have been a performance enhancing drug (most studies that I have seen thus far have examined HGH’s ability to build lean muscle and strength. None have focused on its ability to speed up recovery time between workouts).  And I agree that it’s immoral.  I think he got an immoral doctor to write him a prescription for a condition he doesn’t have, in order to help him gain an advantage in baseball.

For what it’s worth… if your son is buying protein from the health store, it’s almost certainly unhelpful to him (unless he’s a vegetarian).  Most meat eaters get plenty of proteins/amino acids from their diet, and excess doesn’t aid in muscle building as far as I know.  This is according to what I learned in college (2003) and from the Red Sox nutritionist (forget her name, sorry - Nancy something, maybe) who gave a great Q & A session with all the athletes at my college (again, in 2003).  Tell him to save his money if he’s spending it on protein powder.

And by the way - these kinds of discussions are only going to get more complicated as technology evolves.  It’s kind of fascinating.  One thing that a lot of cyclists do (er, allegedly) is take out some blood well before a race, let their bodies replenish the lost red blood cells naturally, and then inject the blood back into their bodies shortly before the race.  Far as I know, it’s not illegal.  No outside substances used.  But I think it’s against the rules.  Should it be?  I have no idea.

If he broke the law or MLB rules, of course he was WRONG. If that is the crux of the argument, then there is no argument from anyone.  Clearly the argument is whether he did anything “wrong” if he got the drugs legally and did not continue using them after the ban.  As far as I know, there are no allegations otherwise.  In fact, it is quite telling that he specifically stopped ordering them, at least from that one place, after the ban was put into effect.

I am not a practicing lawyer, but I AM a lawyer.  Ordering drugs from the internet and getting a prescription from an internet doctor is NOT illegal even if the doctor is ultimately prosecuted or otherwise penalized. Being invovled with someone who does something illegal does NOT, by any means, necessarily make you a co-conspirator.  I will agree that it is shady, as most people who have a legitimate medical condition get their prescriptions from a non-internet doctor.  That is as far as I’ll go, however.

And my original (and only, realy) claim stands, that what WJ said was outrageous and made no sense.  I heard LaRussa on the radio today, He said something like as far as he has heard, Ankiel had done nothing against the law or the rules, which is the appropriate thing to say other than “no comment” which is what I would say 99% of the time if I were a GM or spokesperson for a team.

Jocketty has now changed his tune:  http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-cardinals-ankiel-hgh&prov=ap&type=lgns.

His initial quote was stupid, simultaneously hanging Ankiel out to dry while also making the Cardinals out to be victims.  If Ankiel did something wrong, then it didn’t “happen to us.”

Firstly, MGL needs to drop the it was prescribed by a doctor defense immediately. This doctor and the associated pharmacy is without question operating way outside the boundaries of the law otherwise there would not such a mammoth investigation that has already resulted in 20 indictments. Everything else you argue is reasonable, that most certainly is not.

Every reputable sport in the world, including baseball, considers HGH against the rules. As does WADA, the independently agency that oversees testing for the sports really serious about cleaning up this issue. I respect JC Bradbury a lot, but his argument of why HGH is not a performance enhancer is shallow. The piece basically argues that since HGH does not increase strength, it is not an enhancer. Except HGH does many other things that do aid performance (Wikipedia or Google it). Bradbury conveniently ignores this in his piece. Besides, I’ll defer to the experts (WADA, again) on what constitutes a PED. If it doesn’t enhance performance, why does evryone ban it?

As for the morality issue, isn’t cheating at any game or sport immoral? There’s also an argument, debatable I grant you, that engaging in behavior that is self-destructive, even if it hurts no one else, is immoral. That’s where I was coming from. And make no mistake, steroids and HGH is very dangerous stuff, which is why it is outlawed without a legitimate prescription. I think people need to be more aware and sensitive to this issue particularly in light of all the news regarding the astounding death rates of pro wrestlers. If one wants to argue that you have the legal right to do steroids, marijuana, etc. under a libertarian type argument, I can buy that. But that’s not the system we have.

Phil, there is no question that as per the facts we are discussing, Ankiel has not cheated.  We may find out that he did in fact transgress MLB rules (by continuing to take or possess HGH after it was banned), but as of now, there is no evidence or facts to indicate that.  So why are you saying that “immoral” means cheating, when no cheating has been alleged and that is the crux of the last few posts so far (that all we know is that he ordered and presumably used HGH before it was banned?  Sure, I guess by definition, cheaing is immoral, but ANKIEL IS NOT ALLEGED TO HAVE CHEATED.  How many times does that need to be said?

You can characterize him getting a prescription and ordering through the internet as shady as you want, but that does not change the fact that it is probably not illegal and if there is a chance that it is, let’s leave that up to the government.  So I have no defense by saying that what he did was probably legal?  I don’t understand that.  I admit that it may be shady, but that does not change the fact that he probably acted legally and so far, did NOT cheat.  So let’s at least start from common ground which is uncontrovertedly, that there are no allegations so far that he cheated or broke the law.  That is the ONLY platform from which ALL of my arguments emanate.

I really have no idea whether HGH is perfomance enhancing and neither do you.  Whether it is or isn’t is NOT the least bit relevant to any of my arguments thus far, so let’s drop that as well.  To say that HGH is “very dangerous stuff,” and make nop mistake about it is ridiculous, as there is clearly NOT a consensus in the scientific community that HGH is “very dangerous stuff.” If you have some source that indicates that there is little or no doubt that HGH is very dangerous stuff, please refer to it here.  And of course, the answer to that question probably depends on how much you take, what you take it for, as well as a host of other considerations.

So what you are left with is that you THINK that taking HGH is bad for you and you think that getting prescriptions and drugs from the internet and especially from a company that is under indictment or investigation for illegal activity is shady and perhaps illegal (although, as I said, from what I have read, and from what I know as a lawyer, I doubt that it is illegal.  If you think that taking HGH legally is “immoral” I cannot argue with that other than to say that you must be a helluva moral person, as if you think that doing anything bad for you is “immoral” then we all do (at least I do) immoral things on a daily basis. 

It is kind of silly to argue about a word like “immoral” but I wanted to make it very clear the red herring arguments you are making as well as the innacurate statements you are making.  The red herring statement is that cheating is immoral.  I’ll grant you that, but Ankiel has NOT been alleged to have cheated.  The innacurate ones are that what he did is illegal (it is probably not), and that HGH is “make no mistake” dangerous stuff.  I’ll concede that the latter MAY be true, but no one can say with a straight face (maybe a renowned medical expert could I suppose) that “make no mistake,” meaning it is definitely true, that HGH is dangerous stuff.  And clearly since it is prescribed for SOME things, perhaps even for the injuries that Ankiel was recovering from, it is NOT dangerous stuff for SOME things.  Are you a doctor?

Taking GH has detrimental long term health effects except in a very few instances (such as GH deficiency). Personally, I find a pattern of choosing temporal gain over long term goals to signal a flawed character.

Phil - totally agree with your second paragraph.  JC’s argument is incredibly shallow, for exactly that reason.  He’s cited way too many times when people bring up whether or not HGH “helps”.  If you read his post on it with some skepticism in mind, the entire argument falls apart.

I think there’s two types of cheating.  Cheating the rules, which as far as I know Ankiel has not done (again, unless his supply lasted til ‘05 or his doctor did something illegal with the prescription).  Then there’s cheating the game.  I’m not a lawyer, but I’m a baseball fan.  Getting a prescription for a performance enhancing drug, which you truly got to gain a competitive advantage (not proven this was his intent, just my opinion) is cheating the game.  It’s just profoundly disappointing.

I think these are all reasonable/ very likely assumptions as per the case:

1) Ankiel, for the purposes of enhancing his ability to play baseball, sought out HGH.

2) To this end, he sought out a doctor who would prescribe it to him knowing full well that there was no legit medical purpose for it.

3) Said doctor knew he was participating in, essentially, a illegal drug deal. One guy asks another for a controlled substance and the other gives it to him without caring for the other’s well-being. The fact that one guy wears a white coat is irrelevant if he’s not behaving in accordance with the rules governing that profession. Ipso facto, both guys broke the law (a for of cheating, if you will). If a doctor offers to prescribe me OxyContin and I accept, knowing full well that I have no legit/legal/safe use for it, that’s illegal.

Can I prove all of those? No. Are they all overwhelmingly likely? Yes. Let’s start with that and go from there.

“So let’s at least start from common ground which is uncontrovertedly, that there are no allegations so far that he . . . broke the law.”

I am alleging illegality here on the part of Ankiel because the government sure as heck is. They are basically arguing that the doctor/pharmacy illegally sold drugs. If someone is illegally selling drugs, then someone must illegally be buying them. The fact that they won’t prosecute Ankiel or any other athlete associated with these pharmacies does NOT in itself mean they acted entirely within the law.

Here’s how Ankiel has cheated (beyond very likely breaking the law): was HGH use specifically outlawed by MLB in 2005? No. But that by MLB’s own admission was a joke and part of woefully flawed policy. Obviously, Ankiel and any other abuser of HGH at the time felt that they were cheating to some extent otherwise they would have tried to hide it. I’d argue HGH use clearly violated the spirit of the rules. Most PEDs were illegal then and every expert (see below) says HGH is a PED. That is, I admit, a somewhat convoluted argument but it has merit.

“I really have no idea whether HGH is perfomance enhancing and neither do you.”

Right, that’s why I deferred to the experts on this one. You ought to do the same. No sport with testing permits HGH use. When MLB did not have HGH listed as a banned substance, the argument certainly wasn’t: “We, MLB, do not believe HGH is a performance enhancer so we will not outlaw it.” If that was the case, why did they change their tune so quickly on HGH?

“So what you are left with is that you THINK that taking HGH is bad for you . . . If you have some source that indicates that there is little or no doubt that HGH is very dangerous stuff, please refer to it here.”

No, the government has made HGH a controlled substance for a darn good reason. Again, let’s defer to the people whose job it is to make these kinds of judgments. If you click on my name, I linked to the Wikipedia page for GH treatment which is very thorough in its treatment. There’s more at WebMD if you search there for HGH. Yes, HGH is make no mistake dangerous stuff, as evident by the multitude of side effects cited at those links and its illegality. Many more easily prescribed medicines can be classified as very dangerous if not used properly. Certainly, HGH then can be. You make a good point about quantity and purpose.

“ If you think that taking HGH legally is “immoral” I cannot argue with that other than to say that you must be a helluva moral person, as if you think that doing anything bad for you is “immoral” then we all do (at least I do) immoral things on a daily basis. “

It’s off-topic but I’d argue that a lifestyle full of doing things that harm you’re body is immoral. To go to a point you made earlier, eating a twinkie is not immoral but a lifestyle full of twinkies, fatty foods, no exercise, and so forth could be argued to be immoral. Up for debate, of course, and it really has nothing to do with Ankiel.

I am NOT a doctor but have been following the steroids in sport story for decades. For one, I wrote a detailed 15 page analysis on the federal government’s charges against the WWF and Vince McMahon for a law class in college. That research and other things I’ve done independently has given me a strong foundation on which to speak here.

Upon further reflection, I am going to agree that Ankiel probably tried HGH as a means to get a performance edge and that one could reasonably have ethical/moral issues with that.

As far as the illegality, either something is illegal or it is not, although there certainly are grey areas of the law and of behavior with respect to the law.  To say that what Ankiel did is almost certainly illegal is almost certainly not correct.  While it is true that the government does not prosecute all technical breaches of the law, in this case there probably was not a technical breach of the law by Ankiel.  It is not big deal, but I don’t know why you insist on having an opinion on that when it is a legal issue (whether Ankiel broke the law) best left to legally trained people.  In fact, I would have to research the federal and state statutes myself to be sure. 

I would have to say that you are also being a bit over the top about the “dangers” of HGH.  I know several middle-aged people who get HGH and testosterone treatment for general well-being.  They are being “treated” by relatively legitimate and mainstream doctors. I doubt that what they are doing is particularly dangerous to their health. Perhaps that is because they are taking low doses of HGH compared to someone who is trying to enhance their athletic performance, I don’t really know.

But to say that taking (any dose) of HGH, other than for, say growth problems as a child, is categorically dangerous, is just plain wrong. Looking at the potential side effects of a drug is an extremely silly way of judging the safety of a drug.  Have you ever looked at the potential side effects of ANYTHING you take?  Well, you know what I mean.

But, as I said, you have convinced me to change my mind about what Ankiel probably did in terms of being ethically (I am still not comfortable using the word “immoral” as that has other connotations which I don’t think apply here) “wrong”.

Endogenous GH levels decrease with age resulting in loss of muscle tone and skeletal issues. Appropriately dosing such aging individuals to help mitigate these issues is a far cry from supporting the notion that supplementing normal GH levels in young men with bolus, supraphysiological doses is safe and healthy. It should be pointed out that GH supplementation in the elderly is a controversial issue.

#17, yes, that is what I understand as well.  I still cannot see any justification for stating with impunity that giving HGH supplements to an otherwise normal, healthy, young person (like ANkiel) is CLEARLY dangerous in the short or long term.

A good comp for the potential deleterious effects of abusing HGH would be the symptoms associated with acromegaly. Some of the more serious ones include heart failure, loss of kidney function, hypertension, and insulin resistance (a state that is currently thought to underlie the metabolic syndrome) which can lead to diabetes and a dramatically heightened risk for cardiovascular disease. Obviously symptoms such as these can culminate into a reduced life expectancy. In some instances, acromegaly can be associated with impaired vision which would obviously jeopardize a player’s career. Importantly, while acromegaly can be managed provided the underlying cause is diagnosed at an early stage, persons abusing HGH may be less likely to seek medical care. Unfortunately many of these symptoms are are silent killers that do not present as easily recognizable until the damage they cause is irreversible.

While it’s debatable that abusing HGH for a short period such as a year may not be associated with dramatic health risks, those that are abusing it are likely taking it without any doctor supervision. Dosing issues, pre-existing medical conditions (either known or importantly unknown), and interactions with other substances those persons may also be taking makes HGH a pretty risky proposition IMHO.

Again, “a pretty risky proposition,” yes.  “Without a doubt, a dangerous thing,” no.

The other thing I forgot to address is the logic that because most or all major sports ban something, that that means it must be really bad for you under almost all circumstances.  That is preposterous logic.  Under that and similar logic, pot is terrible for you and cigarrettes and alcohol are not.  Etc.

"The other thing I forgot to address is the logic that because most or all major sports ban something, that that means it must be really bad for you under almost all circumstances.”

That’s not what I was arguing at all. If all sports ban it than it clearly is a performance enhancer without prejudice to any long-term health effects. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

And when I say HGH is without a question dangerous, I’m specifically alluding to the fact that it has been proven to increase the risk of heart attacks, diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, intercranial hypertension and even cancer. And I’m really only referring to HGH abuse, not the limited use thereof under the supervision of an ethical doctor. It’s not an automatic, obviously as it only increases the risk. Not everyone who abuses HGH will go to an early grave, but everyone who does increases the odds of that happening. That’s what I’m getting at. Our disagreement may only be in terminology here.

I guess I don’t disagree with that assessment of the abuse of HGH.

I would have to take exception to the assertion that because it is banned it must be a performance enhancer.  There must be other reasons to ban a substance, and there must be a chance that it is only assumed that something is a performance enhancer but is not, or at the least, we are not certain.

The idea that Ankiel or Gary Matthews Jr. or middle aged guys trying to get a boost have not violated the law is naive at best. 

It is a crime to request or solicit someone to break the law. 

At the state level, this is generally referred to as solicitation, and for example is how men who solicit women to engage in prostitution are charged.  At the federal level, the crime of solicitation is referred to as conspiracy.

In this case, it is hard to imagine how Ankiel did not violate federal conspiracy statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. 1371.  To believe no violation occurred, one would have to believe that Ankiel did not seek out this doctor because Ankiel knew that this out of state doctor, unlike pretty much most every other doctor in the U.S., would prescribe him drugs in violation of U.S. law.

That the federal government would rather, for obvious reasons, focus their efforts on prosecuting the sources of the illegal distribution of these drugs than on those who receive these drugs doesn’t change any of this.

This has to be another legal opinion from a person with no legal training.  You “argument” is so flawed I would not know where to begin if I wanted to refute it.

Conspiracy has NOTHING in particular to do with solicitation, although it could I suppose. And there are state as well as federal conspiracy laws, the definition basically being the same.  Generally for a person to be guilty of a federal conspiracy, as per 371 (not 1371, BTW), there must be a federal crime invovlved.

Conspiracy charges are difficult to prove and prosecute as the laws themselves are not very clear (the definition of conspiracy and the elements needed to convict are as clear as mud).  Prosecuters usually only deal with them when they think that there is no substantive crime to charge a person with.

Even though “ignorance of the law” is generally (not always) a defense against criminal charges, in a conspiracy charge, each person must generally be aware that they were conspiring with another person or persons to commit an illegal act. So in the case of Ankiel, for example, the “state” would have to prove that Ankiel knew that there was an illegal activity being planned and that he actively participated in that plan.  That is a stretch to say the least, I think.

For example, if I go to a doctor and tell him that I am tired all the time and he gives me an illegal prescription, there is NO WAY that I am guilty of any crime even if what he did was clearly illegal.  That may or may not be what happened in Ankiel’s case, but a prosecuter would have a hell of a time (read: impossible) proving that he knew that getting an off label HGH prescription by an internet doctor was illicit, if in fact it was.

When it comes to certain activities and certain laws, the only real definition of whether you have done something legal or not is whether you can or will ever be charged with a crime.  Just because YOU think that someone has done something illegal does not make it so.  For example, there are many laws that are likely or possibly unconstitutional (e.g., what Idaho Senator Craig was charged with, or Nevada’s “Crimes Against Nature” law) and they are generally not prosecuted because prosecutors know that any decent lawyer would not only “beat the rap” but cause the law to come off the books.  So if someone technically breaks one of those laws, did they do something illegal?  No, and certainly not in the eyes of the law (any law that is unconstitutional has no force or effect).

And what difference does it make to ANY argument whether someone, even a legal expert, thinks that Ankiel did something illegal or not?  We can argue whether what he did was ethical, moral, etc., but to argue whether it was technically legal or not is specious.  It only has any relevance if he is charged with anything and ultimately found guilty.  Given the facts of the case so far, there is exactly zero % chance of that happening, and that is mostly because he has probably not committed any crime.

As I said before, any person with legal training would have to research the relevant laws and loos closely at the facts of the case before making a precise determination that Ankiel did or did not break the law, but as I also said, given what we know of the case, it is extremely likely (not 100%) that Ankiel did NOT break any laws.

MGL is pretty dismissive of the “ethical, moral” part of this story, because of the nebulousness of those concepts. And if I were Ankiel, I would be too, because I decide for myself what is moral for me.

But it’s also a reality that a baseball player is in the same boat with other celebrities, as to their connection with the public. And in the Court of Public Opinion, Ankiel has been arrested and has essentially confessed. His ‘sentence’ will likely be a decrease in popularity, and a lack of respect from a large element of society, from this point forward.

That’s a risk he had to be aware of when he started taking HGH, even if he researched, and stayed within, the technical legalities. He decided that the possible benefit to his career (and bank account) were worth that risk. So, now he has to pay the price…

dcs, I did actually change my mind about what he did being construed as ethically questionable.  I, also, decide what is morally correct for me.  The notion that because something is illegal, it is immoral, is ridiculous, IMO, although, according to one definition of immoral (something is immoral simply if it goes against accepted norms), that may be strictly so.  Personally, I don’t do any drugs, but I don’t consider it immoral in any way shape or form if someone smokes pot in the privacy of their home.  Making it illegal does not change anything other than the person needs to be careful in some jurisdictions.

from the mayo clinic website:

“Are there any risks to taking human growth hormone if you don’t need it?

Taking human growth hormone can cause a number of side effects, including:

* Swelling in your arms and legs
* Arthritis-like symptoms
* Carpal tunnel symptoms
* Headaches
* Bloating
* Muscle pain
* Diabetes
* Abnormal growth of bones and internal organs
* Hardening of the arteries
* High blood pressure

Some evidence shows that side effects of human growth hormone treatments may be more likely in older adults than in younger adults. Also, because the studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone have been short term, it isn’t clear whether these side effects could eventually dissipate or become worse. For instance, though human growth hormone produced arthritis-like symptoms, it isn’t clear if this would progress into arthritis. More study is needed.”

though dubious, from wiki:

“ * Type 2 diabetes has been reported in a few adolescents treated with GH. It uncertain whether this is a causal association because the incidence of adolescent type 2 diabetes is rising so rapidly in most countries that we no longer have reliable incidence statistics for diabetes in the untreated adolescent population.

* Leukemia is the most common childhood cancer, occurring in about 1 in 40,000 children each year. Because leukocytes have GH receptors, leukemia cases have been carefully counted since recombinant GH was introduced. Although a few children with no risk factors treated with GH have developed leukemia, the numbers have been no more than would be expected in a similarly sized group. For a variety of reasons, it has been harder to achieve the same level of reassurance for children who do have a higher leukemia risk. These are primarily children who became GH deficient as a result of treatment for leukemia or a brain tumor. Available statistics are reassuring, but numbers are not large enough to exclude any amplification of risk.

* Several extra cases of colon cancer were found in a study of lifelong health and mortality of a group of middle-aged British adults with severe GH deficiency from childhood. All had been treated as children with cadaver GH. This association has not been confirmed and even if it were, it would need to be established whether the GH treatment in childhood or the untreated GH deficient state in adult life represented the true association.
“

where are the rest of you getting your information from? even without the wiki, unless a study shows real correlation, i’d be skeptical.

honestly from what i’ve read about hgh, it sounds like a fantastic treatment.

As I have said, HGH and/or testosterone treatment for middle age men, while perhaps not mainstream, and certainly “off-label” (which means nothing), is very popular.  If it was “certainly dangerous” or even close to that, there is NO WAY that it would be so widespread and popular.  Now, whether it actually “works” or not is another story.

"If it was “certainly dangerous” or even close to that, there is NO WAY that it would be so widespread and popular.”

Cigarettes beg to differ There’s a ton of econ/sociological studies showing that people are almost incapable of correct decision-making in situations of potentially large short-term gain and potentially large (but not certain) long-term harm, aren’t there?

Honestly, reading all this stuff here (which I doubt Bonds or Ankiel or anyone else did), I still think it’s worth it.  Ankiel goes from being a career minor leaguer, to likely making millions or tens of millions of dollars, all because he pokes a few home runs in essentially a contract year.  Swollen feet and not having to work for the rest of your life after your 35th birthday is probably better to most people than grinding it out til you’re 65 and having nice healthy feet all along.

Again, it really depends on your definition of “dangerous” or “harmful” or “certainly harmful.” Many things, e.g., alcohol, sweets, fast foods, fatty foods, racing cars, running with the bulls, are dangerous and harmful (i.e., increase risk of disease, death, cancer, etc.) in the long run and even the short run in some cases.  I guess almost everything we do in life must have a cost/benefit analysis.  To say that something is either good/bad, out of context, is too simplistic.

MGL:

There is a huge controversy among endocrinologists concerning the safety of administering HGH to middle-aged men. I’d like to point out that the practice hasn’t become prevalent enough for long enough to enable epidemiologists to have a definitive say.  I think the jury being still out is a far cry from supporting the notion that a widespread practice is not definitely harmful. The same argument couldve been made for Fen-Phen several years ago before it was deemed unsafe.

Drug company marketing often out paces epidemiology (just look at poglitazone and diabetes).  I think there is serious cause for pause regarding the safety of otherwise healthy individuals taking supraphysiological doses of HGH.

I’m pretty sure that if you came out with a product, and fully disclosed to customers that it would take 10-20 years off their life but make them look young for the time they have left, you’d become a billionaire selling it.

I don’t know about 10-20 years…

And I don’t disagree with #32 at all.