Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003

Neyer on Oswalt: "Oddly enough, he's giving Roger Clemens 'the benefit of the doubt' and has little to say about any other ex-teammates, a healthy number of whom must have been juicing right along with A-Rod and Rocket. ...Credibility is enhanced by consistency."

Say goodbye to your obvious juice-enhanced numbers, Nook.

YEAR HR
2004 0
2005 1
2006 1
2007 0

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spkeith116031539feb11,0,3511401.story

SNY analyst Keith Hernandez last night expressed anger and frustration over baseball's performance-enhancing drug culture, calling the era "tainted" and said, "anybody that did steroids" should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Speaking on "SportsNite," Hernandez made it clear that includes Alex Rodriguez, whose statement Monday that he did not know exactly what he took was dismissed by Hernandez. "I think that A-Rod knew what he was doing," Hernandez said. "I think that if you look at his teammates over there in Texas, it was a nest of cheaters."

Hernandez said "it all boils down to greed" and wondered whether he might have put up Hall of Fame numbers had he bulked up with steroids.

"I was 191 pounds my rookie year," he said. "If I had ingested steroids, I would have been close to 230 pounds. Now how much better would that have made me, 230 pounds without any body fat? And how many more home runs would I have hit?

"I hit 164 home runs . I probably would have hit over 250. I drove in 1,100 runs . I probably would have drove in 1,400. And I think that, along with 11 Gold Gloves, I'd be in the Hall of Fame."

o_O

argh retired baseball players are seriously the worst.

Referring to people as "Mex" in the USA

Am I getting the wrong impression here or is baseball culture a neverending cycle of statistics and "u mad"?

Welcome to ILB

hahaha, I was just about to say that. Welcome! ONE OF US ONE OF US

yah that should be the nu ILB descrption

would have been close to 230 pounds.

lol dude was close to this his last few years - fat, slow-footed fuck.
also, cokehead

DETROIT, U MAD

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Sunday, October 1, 2006 5:00 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark

yah that should be the nu ILB descrption

Done.

^NO. srsly, music geeks laughing @ baseball fans?

yeah Keith, maybe your choice of PEDs is what shortened yr career.

Referring to people as "Mex" in the USA

also, his dad was from Spain, not Mexico. Ballplayer geography.

well he did specify "230 pounds without any body fat" xxxp

another actual tragedy of steroid headlines: "visitors" from ILE.

Hernandez provides some Rizzuto-like LOLs in the Mets booth, but he often comes across as a haughty dick.

you're seriously complaining about outsiders puncturing the sanctity of ILB?

seriously no, complaining yes, thats how I roll

understood

new board description is accurate and an improvement over anything using "LOL"

howev, if you want to summarize the last 5 years of PED debate for icey feel free (xp)

as Al Pacino would say, You're "mad", the whole TRIAL is "mad"

Yes, but as Charles Durning would say, "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK!"

:)

via Neyer:

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2009/02/what-impact-did-steroids-have-on-alex-rodriguezs-home-run-performance/

So, what were A-Rod's steroids worth? 2.37 home runs over two seasons, or a little over one home run a season. At least, that is the estimate based on the method I laid out above; however, it's probably best to say that there was no observed effect. It is possible that the steroids did give Rodriguez a boost, and this may have helped him through an injury or some other factor that my estimate does not account for. It's also likely that he hit more home runs than expected through random chance. Given the general swings in the play of the game, it is very difficult to separate true performance changes from random swings in performance. The deviation here isn't large enough to say much.

The important finding is that the statistical record doesn't reveal an obvious spike in home-run performance by Alex Rodriguez during the time when he admits to using performance-enhancing drugs.

so why do people do it?

*sigh* ?

Morbs OTM

i kinda want to believe they have a minimal effect because it would be pretty funny for guys to go crazy over the roids for no reason at all, but i just find sosa's '98-'02 run a little too unbelievable. at the same time, whatever.

players also seem to believe devoutly in clutch-hitting ability

"The important finding is that the statistical record doesn't reveal an obvious spike in home-run performance by Alex Rodriguez during the time when he admits to using performance-enhancing drugs." [my emphasis]

So the conclusion relies on the premise that A-Rod was telling the truth about his use being confined to 2001-03.

so the new thing is havin' "we can't prove the effects" blinders?

the old thing is "positive test = invalid career" blinders

both positions are equally awful.

"So the conclusion relies on the premise that A-Rod was telling the truth about his use being confined to 2001-03."

Wait wait wait you don't think A-Rod came off as completely honest and totally forthcoming in that Gammons' interview?!?! What guy did you watch?

"the old thing is "positive test = invalid career" blinders"

No one is demanding A-Rod return his salary, Morbs.

all i'm saying w/r/t this "scandal" is the whole notion of how we can't "prove" anything is true, i guess, but as much as i still got love for the guy, i can't forget that sammy sosa went from being tony armas w/speed for the first 6-7 years of his career and then turned out seasons willie mays, hank aaron, etc never even came close to (in certain respects). it's just a little "peculiar". but like i said, who can prove anything really?

alot of people (not here so much) are saying no HOF for ARod tho. sounds like invalidating a career to me.

xpost

no, but there are "no HOF vote" posturings aplenty. (xxp)

For the sake of argument, are we accepting that he's been "clean" the last 4 seasons because he hasn't failed a test? (yes, like anyone else he could be using undetectables.) He's been pretty HOF-caliber as a Yankee; so how much 'worse' would he have been 'unaided' in '01-03?

xxxposts galore
well actually, the study above seems to be suggesting, yes we can prove the effects, and in a-rod's case they're minimal. we can just compare his production in 01-03 to other periods in his career. but again, that assumes he wasn't juicing before or after that period.

which is a huge & key assumption, obv.

instead let's just assume he's been using HGH and Flubber since high school.

"For the sake of argument, are we accepting that he's been "clean" the last 4 seasons because he hasn't failed a test?"

Don't really see why anyone should accept this, frankly.

instead let's just assume he's been using HGH and Flubber since high school.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:11 PM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well thats def a more reasonable assumption than just believing he did it only during that time for which he got caught

basically the standard of "knowledge" we have to accept about 2004-08 is he HASN'T been using, cuz anything else is just Witchhunt City. maybe maybe maybe.

oh "reasonable," ridiculous

btw "that time for which he got caught" is just '03

"basically the standard of "knowledge" we have to accept about 2004-08 is he HASN'T been using, cuz anything else is just Witchhunt City. maybe maybe maybe."

I think basic standard here is for most people taking steroids = cheating and people don't trust people who cheat. If A-Rod doesn't like it, well fuck him.

why i think a-rod is telling the truth:

- the rangers were basically the roid version of a meth lab around that time, apparently
- maybe living up to that new contract was a good reason to do it in his mind
- he maybe would have stopped when he came to new york because ny was perceived as a little less, uh, "loosey goosey" when it came to steroids?

why i think he's lying:

- steroids were everywhere else too, apparently
- the new contract reasoning is bullshit, the guy didn't need to do more than he had previously in order to live up to it
- if he started juicing in texas to live up to the fans and the team's expectations, why would he stop in nyc, where expectations were so much higher?

theres totally not reliable data to conduct a statistical analysis - neyer is just playing in lol wtf ill give it a shot mode

well it's a good thing those other 103 names aren't coming out (maybe) so fans' list of who not to trust will stay short.

where's all the 'lack of trust' for Andy Pettitte?

dude pettitte has a close personal relationship w/god so thats all i need to know pretty much