Showing posts with label Drug Testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drug Testing. Show all posts

Monday, April 06, 2015

C.J. Wilson calls Angels statement on Josh Hamilton 'kind of disheartening' | Big League Stew - Yahoo Sports



Image result for it's all about the money money money


This is the flip side of the Kris Bryant - Scott Boras whine-a-thon. You don't like the agreement, next time, negotiate a better agreement. Next CBA negotiation, players give some on getting paid to sit out for things that would get most folks jettisoned from their job and players get some on this time-clock / tenure issue.

It's not like Kris Bryant, or generations of Bryants to follow are going to be wanting if he isn't the real deal. And it's not like Josh Hamilton would be hurting -- hell it might even help -- if some of these perverse incentives were not in place. He might have had the motivation he needs to stay on the wagon.

from Yahoo Sports:
C.J. Wilson calls Angels statement on Josh Hamilton 'kind of disheartening' | Big League Stew - Yahoo Sports:

Shortly after the league's announcement, Los Angeles Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto, who signed Hamilton to his five-year, $125 million contract in 2012, released a statement in reaction to the ruling, which to many came across as insensitive and petty and has since left many critical of the organization's conduct.

In fact, according to Pedro Moura of the Orange County Register, many of Hamilton's teammates were left speechless yet undeniably affected when the statement played over the TV in the Angel Stadium weight room. Speechless, with the exception of C.J. Wilson, who has a friendship with Hamilton dating back to their time with the Texas Rangers.
'via Blog this'

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Josh Hamilton meets with MLB after drug relapse: source - NY Daily News


Josh Hamilton has been summoned to New York for a meeting with MLB officials. 


I heard the report from MLB Network this morning on Sirius that a league source, when asked if Hamilton's issue was due to PED use, reportedly said "worse, far worse".

Like fellow Angels OF Mike Trout said, "this sucks". But this is what worse, far worse and Hamilton's prior struggles lead you to conclude.

Thought and prayers go out to Josh and his loved ones. This has to be devastating news to them as well as his extended baseball family.

from NY Daily News:
Josh Hamilton meets with MLB after drug relapse: source - NY Daily News:

Josh Hamilton, the slugging outfielder who seemed destined for baseball stardom but has been repeatedly sidelined due to substance abuse, was summoned to New York to meet with MLB officials Wednesday about a disciplinary issue.

A source told The News that Hamilton — whose struggles with crack cocaine and alcohol have been well-documented — suffered a cocaine and alcohol relapse.
According to CBSSports.com, Hamilton told MLB about his relapse. His father-in-law, Michael Chadwick, reportedly said Wednesday that Hamilton has “hit a bump in the road, keep him in your prayers.”
 The Los Angeles Times reported that the Angels are preparing for a possible suspension.
'via Blog this'

Monday, November 17, 2014

The PR hits just keep coming for the NFL



As if the NFL didn't have enough problems lately with concussions, domestic violence, homophobia or player conduct, now this. This has been going on in some fashion for generations. It is embedded in the culture, accepted and condoned by owners, players and fans. It's part of the warrior mentality. Without the mask of drugs dulling the pain, the warrior mask comes off and these guys become closer to the wanna-be cubical warriors who play flag football on the weekends -- a glorified recreational sport -- not a billion dollar, made for TV industry.

Maybe the NFL as a league needs something to dull the pain of the repetitive hits to it's image

from ESPN:
Drug Enforcement Administration stages surprise NFL inspections - ESPN
The DEA also has reason to believe visiting team physicians may not be keeping "readily retrievable documents," that spell out which prescription drugs are administered and to whom, the federal law enforcement source said.

"Our intelligence suggests controlled substances are not properly logged to specific players," the source added. 
 DEA agents planned Sunday to inspect the medical bags of visiting team doctors for prescription drugs while alongside Transportation Safety Administration screeners.

"If doctors don't get players back on the field, you think they're going to continue to be the team doctor?" Closius said, when asked about the NFL culture that routinely demands players play with pain.

"Everybody is subservient to this return-to-play culture -- doctors, general managers, coaches, everybody. And that return-to-play culture is responsible for this illegal distribution on drugs," Closius added.


'via Blog this'

Friday, July 23, 2010

Drug Testing for naught? No, but maybe a mixed bag at best...



A recent study from the U.S. Department of Education shows that drug testing high school students who participate in athletics and other extracurricular activities doesn’t have any long-term effect on usage rates.

So maybe we're left with a bit of a short-term "buzz" but long-term, we still have the same problems. Isn't it somewhat ironic that this is one of the core arguments against turning to drug use as an escape or a patch over life's problems in the first place?

So maybe in addition to saying 'no' to drugs, we need to look at saying 'no' to policies that may make us feel better about dealing with the problem in appearance, but in reality puts us in no better place than we originally started.


High school drug testing shows no long-term effect on use


http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-07-15-drugtesting14_st_N.htm?referer=d1a38dbaf3c5c3b7d2fad43e9b99a392

THE FINDINGS:

New research paints a decidedly mixed picture when it comes to mandatory drug testing for high school students trying out for sports or other extracurricular activities: While testing seems to reduce self-reported drug use in the short term, it has virtually no effect on teens' plans to use drugs in the future.

A U.S. Department of Education study, out today, surveyed students at 36 high schools that got federal grants to do drug testing. Half of the schools had already begun testing for marijuana, amphetamines and other drugs; the other half had not.

THE PLUSSES AND MINUSES:

The results are mildly encouraging for drug-test proponents: They show that fewer kids in extracurricular activities reported using drugs when testing took place, compared with peers in schools where drug testing hadn't been implemented.

In schools with testing, 16.5% of students reported using tested-for drugs within the previous 30 days, vs. 21.9% in other schools.

And testing didn't seem to discourage students from going out for activities.

But that's basically where the good news ends. Testing didn't seem to have a "spillover effect" on kids who weren't trying out for extracurriculars — in both sets of schools, 36% of these students said they had used drugs in the previous 30 days.And testing had no effect on the number of drug-related "disciplinary incidents." in schools.

What's perhaps most troubling: Testing had no effect on kids' plans to use drugs in the future. In both sets of schools, about one in three students said they "probably" or "definitely" will use drugs in the next year.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

NEW FROM THE IHSA




Apparently, they will determine team penalties on a case-by-case basis. At least they are moving towards a recognition that there is some responsibility on those placed in charge of these student-athletes. That will get positive results faster than anything else.
-----------------------------------------------
IHSA sets penalty for steroid usage
Daily Herald Report

The Illinois High School Association's Board of
Directors at its monthly meeting Saturday in Peoria
approved the penalty to be applied to a student who
tests positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

The student would be ineligible for 365 days from the
date the test results were reported to the student and
the school.


The student may then apply for reinstatement of
athletic eligibility after 90 calendar days, following
the successful completion of an approved educational
program and a negative test for performance-enhancing
drugs.

The board determined that any team penalties would be
determined by the executive director on a case-by-case
basis under the provisions of Article 1.460 of the
IHSA Constitution.


The board also approved the National Center for Drug
Free Sport to provide testing services when the
program is implemented in the 2008-09 school term, and
approved the language of the random testing consent
form that each student and his/her guardian will be
required to sign to maintain athletic eligibility.

"We are pleased with the action taken by the Board in
regards to our drug testing program," said IHSA
assistant executive director Kurt Gibson in a release
on the IHSA Web site Monday.

"Our Sports Medicine Advisory Committee believes the
experience Drug Free Sport has with athletic drug
testing will be invaluable in the implementation our
program, and we're excited to have an opportunity to
work with them. Our committee felt that their
experience, expertise, and commitment to education on
the use of performance-enhancing substances were the
best match for the needs of our program."

Sunday, March 09, 2008

NY Times Article re: Performance Enchancing Drugs in Society at Large




Interesting thought in todays NYT regarding PED use in other areas of society. Note the claim that among high school students, abuse of prescription medications is second only to cannabis use. And remember where Congress chose to put its time and effort "to protect our nations youth".

When you only have a limited amount of resources available, time and money being too of the more precious resources, where you choose to pick your battles and why is certainly a valid point to debate when Congress goes off, half-cocked, on one of it's agenda shaping, dog and pony shows. And it is valid to ask the question "why are they doing this?" especially in light of the narrative presented in this story.-CS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?ex=1362805200&en=4c9d7fc024597717&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Smartening Up

Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 9, 2008

So far no one is demanding that asterisks be attached to Nobels, Pulitzers or Lasker awards. Government agents have not been raiding anthropology departments, riffling book bags, testing professors’ urine. And if there are illicit trainers on campuses, shady tutors with wraparound sunglasses and ties to basement labs in Italy, no one has exposed them.

Yet an era of doping may be looming in academia, and it has ignited a debate about policy and ethics that in some ways echoes the national controversy over performance enhancement accusations against elite athletes like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

In a recent commentary in the journal Nature, two Cambridge University researchers reported that about a dozen of their colleagues had admitted to regular use of prescription drugs like Adderall, a stimulant, and Provigil, which promotes wakefulness, to improve their academic performance. The former is approved to treat attention deficit disorder, the latter narcolepsy, and both are considered more effective, and more widely available, than the drugs circulating in dorms a generation ago.

But is prescription tweaking to perform on exams, or prepare presentations and grants, really the same as injecting hormones to chase down a home run record, or win the Tour de France?

Some argue that such use could be worse, given the potentially deep impact on society. And the behavior of academics in particular, as intellectual leaders, could serve as an example to others.

In his book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,” Francis Fukuyama raises the broader issue of performance enhancement: “The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods.” He and others point out that increased use of such drugs could raise the standard of what is considered “normal” performance and widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who don’t — and even erode the relationship between struggle and the building of character.

“Even though stimulants and other cognitive enhancers are intended for legitimate clinical use, history predicts that greater availability will lead to an increase in diversion, misuse and abuse,”
wrote Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and James Swanson of the University of California at Irvine, in a letter to Nature. “Among high school students, abuse of prescription medications is second only to cannabis use.”

But others insist that the ethics are not so clear, and that academic performance is different in important ways from baseball, or cycling.

“I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it’s all about competition, only about who’s the best runner or home run hitter,” said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. “In academics, whether you’re a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it’s secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you’ve got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.”

Surveys of college students have found that from 4 percent to 16 percent say they have used stimulants or other prescription drugs to improve their academic performance — usually getting the pills from other students.

“Suppose you’re preparing for the SAT, or going for a job interview — in those situations where you have to perform on that day, these drugs will be very attractive,” said Dr. Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge, a co-author with Sharon Morein-Zamir of the recent essay in Nature. “The desire for cognitive enhancement is very strong, maybe stronger than for beauty, or athletic ability.”

Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania who foresaw this debate in a 2004 paper, argues that the history of cosmetic surgery — scorned initially as vain and unnatural but now mainstream as a form of self-improvement — is a guide to predicting the trajectory of cosmetic neurology, as he calls it.

“We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice,” Dr. Chatterjee said. “Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: ‘Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybody’s lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we’re not harming someone.’ I’m not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.”

People already use legal performance enhancers, he said, from high-octane cafe Americanos to the beta-blockers taken by musicians to ease stage fright, to antidepressants to improve mood. “So the question with all of these things is, Is this enhancement, or a matter of removing the cloud over our better selves?” he said.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

IHSA POLL ON PED TESTING IMPLEMENTATION-REVISITED




ARTICLE BELOW:
Drug study: College coaches 'looking other way'
Nearly a quarter of NCAA steroid users are 'certain' coaches knew
03:09 AM CDT on Thursday, April 27, 2006
By GARY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News


I would like to see a congressional inquiry into this issue. Nearly 25% of college players are certain that their coaches knew of their use? This doesn't surprise me a bit, in fact it seems like it may be on the low side. And if this is the number in college, I can't imagine what the the number would be at the high school level where the coaches have more control and influence on the athletes and the culture.

Now if Congress can get up in arms on the basis of "role-models" exerting undue influence on the Youth of America, I ask you this: At the high school level, who do you think exerts more influence over the life of kids? Their coach or their favorite athlete.

The numbers I have seen indicate that teachers (coaches) are right up their with parents and slightly ahead of the athlete. But I don't want to get into a battle of the studies, because as we've seen with the "reported use of steroids by youth" studies, they could be all over the map.

Although it may sound cynical, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the reason is the ratings for a Congressional Inquiry into coaches would not quite pull down the same numbers as the anal probe, uh inquiry of Roger Clemens.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drug study: College coaches 'looking other way'

Nearly a quarter of NCAA steroid users are 'certain' coaches knew
03:09 AM CDT on Thursday, April 27, 2006

By GARY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News

Among NCAA athletes who reported using anabolic steroids in the organization's most recent study, 24.1 percent said they were "certain" their coaches knew they were using the banned drugs.

Pete Carlon, athletic director at the University of Texas at Arlington and a former member of the committee that oversees the NCAA survey, said he was "startled" and "disappointed" by the finding.

"If that's true, then somebody is turning and looking the other way," Carlon said Wednesday.

Mary Wilfert, the NCAA's associate director of Education Outreach, said the finding indicates a need for additional education of coaches about steroids.

In the NCAA's 2001 study, 20.7 percent of steroid users said they were certain their coaches knew.

The NCAA, which published highlights from its 2005 survey in August, posted the entire study on its Web site Tuesday. Just 1.2 percent of the nearly 20,000 athletes in the study said they used steroids, down from 1.5 percent in 2001. Since its first study in 1985, the NCAA has surveyed athletes about their drug and alcohol use every four years.

Other findings from the 2005 study:

• Of steroid users, 17.8 percent said they got their steroids from a coach, athletic trainer or team physician.

• 4.1 percent of the athletes said they used amphetamines, which, like steroids, are performance-enhancing substances. Amphetamine use has increased steadily from 2.1 percent in 1993 and is highest (4.6 percent) in Division III.

• Use of steroids (2.3 percent) and amphetamines (3.9 percent) by baseball players equaled use by football players.

• 5.2 percent of women's softball players said they used amphetamines.

• 11.2 percent of the athletes said they had "been taken advantage of sexually" one or more times in the last 12 months because of their drinking or drug use.

• Among those who said they had used amphetamines "recently," 27.9 percent said they used the drug as treatment for attention deficit disorder (ADD) and 9.7 percent said to improve athletic performance.

Frank Uryasz, president of the National Center for Drug Free Sport, which conducts the NCAA's drug-testing program, said his group is seeing greater use of ADD medication.

"Some athletes are readily sharing their prescription drugs," he said Wednesday. Any use of stimulants, including Ritalin and Adderall, increases the risk of heat illness for an athlete, he said.

Uryasz said he expects the latest results from NCAA drug-testing to be released later this year. They will include the first findings from year-round testing of Division I baseball players.

"We had a disproportionate number of pitchers test positive," he said. "I didn't expect that."

Saturday, February 23, 2008

IHSA POLL ON PED TESTING IMPLEMENTATION




Where is the leadership? Where and when have those in leadership positions stood up and held themselves accountable when things go bad in this country.

Some recent examples of abdication of leadership:
The role of the Federal Reserve and government policy in the housing/credit crisis.
Owners and the Players Union culpability in the PED issue.
The role of government policy and ties to Big Pharma in the growth of the PED issue.
Indiana's administration during the Kelvin Sampson controversy.

Here is a local example from Illinois, the implementation of drug testing for student-athletes, that shows pretty clearly, step by step, how the so-called leaders are willing to pass off responsibility, accountability and the imposition of penalties and sanctions down the line and do not accept PERSONAL responsibility or accountability. Although they do expect that from others. What is it they say? If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

In this case specifically, and the others I mentioned previously, is an illustration of the antithesis of true leadership, as I understand the definition. And then we wonder why some these situations develop and then fail to get resolved. It's a lack of leadership and a failure of leadership in most cases.

I've inserted my notes after the questions and responses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2008-01-15.htm

IHSA Announcements

January 15, 2008
Tabulated Results of Survey on Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Classification, and Tournament Structure

On December 11, 2007, IHSA member schools were asked to respond to a survey dealing with performance-enhancing drugs, classification, and tournament structure. One survey was allotted to each school, to be filled out by its official IHSA representative, which in most cases is the principal or athletic director. The deadline for submitting the survey was January 13, 2008.

In all, 414 of 765 member schools (54%) responded to the survey.
Members Responding
765 414 (54%)

The Slav: This speaks volumes right off the bat. Only 54% response rate for an issue of such significance and importance.

Following are the survey questions and tabulated responses.

1. Do you favor the IHSA implementing a performance-enhancing drug testing program? (If the answer was no, respondents were asked to skip to question 6.)
Yes No
294 (72%) 117 (28%)

The Slav: Pretty good so far. First step, identify that there is a problem. Still have to wonder about the other 46% schools.

2. Do you favor the drug testing program described at the Principals' Rules Meetings?
Yes No
252 (87%) 37 (13%)

The Slav: OK second step, propose a solution. And note the 87-13% landslide.

3. Do you favor ineligibility for a student-athlete who tests positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test?

Yes No
284 (97%) 8 (3%)

The Slav: OK, so once we have testing it's 97-3% for punishing the kid who tests positive.

4. Do you favor the consequence for a school that would require the school to submit an education plan in the event one of its students tests positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test? The plan would address the harms associated with anabolic steroids and other performance enhancers and implementation would be required before the school is allowed to participate in IHSA state series competitions.

Yes No
168 (57%) 125 (43%)

The Slav: OK, here is where we start to slide a little bit. It's 97-3% to punish the kid, but here we start to look at the school's responsibility to the kid. And all it seems like we're asking for here is for them to do what theoretically they've been doing all along, which is educate the kids. EDUCATE THE KIDS!!! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOLS HERE!!! AND ASKING THEM TO EDUCATE THE KIDS, AND THEY WANT TO ABIDCATE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AT THE FIRST SIGN OF TROUBLE???? ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??? OH BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.

5. Do you favor an additional consequence for a school that would require it to forfeit any post-season award won by its team that had a student who tested positive for a banned substance on an IHSA administered drug test?

Yes No
116 (40%) 175 (60%)

The Slav: Oh no way. Ask Coach Trophycollector to give up his goodies? No Way. There is no possibility that either the school or the coach that benefits from it's reputation as a football power should be held accountable. They certainly have no responsibility and shouldn't be held accountable for setting up and reinforcing the "culture" that puts KIDS in the position of having to make the choices that they do, now should they?

So to review:
We went from 97-3% for punishing the kids.

To 57-43% for just asking the schools to do what they've been doing all along, just maybe do it a little better since it seems like you may have failed a bit here, what with this positive test and all.

To 40-60% against holding the team, the coach, and the school (ie: leadership) accountable.

And we call this leadership. AMAZING.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The other questions are entirely unrelated to the issue so I left them out, but in my opinion, it is morally wrong for the schools and the so-called leaders of young men and women to take this position. I do not understand how they can look these kids in the face, much less expect to lead them after basically saying "Kids, if we fail in teaching you about the serious consequences of this issue, you're on your own. You'll take the hit by yourself."

What happened to the teachers refrain of "If you fail, I fail"?
What happened to the concept of team?
If one of us goes down, we all go down.

We preach that to teams all the time as coaches. I know in speaking about this issue with my wife, whose opinion I respect greatly, she did not feel that you can punish the entire team for the actions of one person. But in reality, in a team setting, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

And I think most who participate in team sports, understand and appreciate the concept.

And I'm not sure if that actually where the environment in practice, instead of just in words, that perhaps the climate and the culture would change.

Because if a kid is doing something like this on a football team for example, generally speaking I think its fair to say that someone else on the team knows about it.

If the punitive setting were such that the TEAM, the ENTIRE TEAM would suffer the consequences, then the WALL OF SILENCE COMES DOWN, THE ENTIRE CULTURE changes. Coaches would have to ensure that they are not spewing mere words and that their actions are sending an entirely different message to these kids.

And then we have a real chance of beating down the numbers of kids who are tempted to use PED's. You have to attack the entire culture and EVERYBODY has to be one board, willing to take on the responsibility. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE KIDS ARE INVOLVED.

Do these so-called leaders think that kids are stupid and don't understand what's going on here?

SHAME ON THESE SCHOOLS (THE SHAMEFUL 60%) THAT ARE SELECTIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPT OF ACTING AS PARENTS WHILE OUR KIDS ARE IN THEIR CARE, BUT CHOOSE TO ABDICATE THE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN IT SERVES THEIR OWN INTEREST.

THAT'S NOT HOW A RESPONSIBLE PARENT WOULD ACT WHEN THEIR CHILD'S HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY ARE AT STAKE. I APPLAUD THE 40% WHO SEEM TO HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

THE RACE TO BE SURROGATE PARENTS



ILLINOIS BECOMES 4TH STATE TO IMPLEMENT PED TESTING PROGRAM

The Illinois High School Association's Board of Directors voted earlier this week to implement a performance enhancing drug testing program beginning this fall for state championship competitions. The Board's vote came after reviewing the results of a survey sent to all 765 member schools on December 11, 2007. Curiously, only 414 schools (54%) responded to the survey that was due on Sunday, with 294 schools (72%) voting in favor of implementing a testing program.

IHSA Press Release:
http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2008-01-14.htm

Illinois becomes the fourth state to implement such testing, following New Jersey, Florida, and Texas. Illinois is unique in that its implementation is not the result of state government action, but rather a voluntary choice by IHSA member schools, albeit with an affirmative response from less than 40% of the membership. The IHSA still has to select a collection agent and lab, determine the exact scope of the testing, select a medical review officer, and determine the relative penalties for the athletes and schools after a positive test. Interestingly, the aforementioned survey reveals that while the schools (the voting was done by either the principal or athletic director) were heavily in favor of making the athlete ineligible for testing positive (97% in favor), the schools were against forfeiting a post-season team award for the same offense (60% against).

IHSA Executive Director Marty Hickman said the IHSA likely will fund its own program at an initial annual cost of $100,000 to $150,000. Based on an estimated cost of $175 a test, the IHSA would test fewer than 1,000 athletes a year.

It will test them only after they enter state competition and perhaps only in sports in which use of performance-enhancing substances produces significant competitive advantages. Hickman said the IHSA also plans to strengthen its education program regarding avoiding use of performance-enhancing substances.

Of course, the devil is always in the details, but given these parameters you wonder if this will amount to more window dressing than deterrent. Don't get me wrong, the overall goal of deterring drug use among high school athletes is a positive end goal. I'm just not sure this program gives us much reason to assume that the landscape will change very much.

It would seem as if your school doesn't compete in state competitions and it does not conduct testing on its own, you could continue use and not be at risk of detection. So we may only be talking about deterring a limited percentage of players.

I'm aware that something is better than nothing, but by the same token effective is better than ineffective as well. It remains to be seen whether or not this program, as well as those of the other three states, realizes its goal of deterring and reducing drug use in the future effectively.

According to Frank Uryasz, president of the National Center for Drug Free Sport, data is lacking regarding how many high school athletes take steroids, but he believes anecdotal evidence indicates a need for testing.

The courts have in the past ruled that the legality of searches of this nature are determined “by balancing the intrusion on the individual’s interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests” (US Supreme Court). The balancing act is based on the privacy rights of the students and the general intrusive nature of the tests themselves vs. the need and importance of the instituting the tests.

Generally, the students privacy rights have fared as well as an employees rights in the workplace, which is that you check your constitutional rights at the door. Further the perception is that athletic participation is a privilege, not a right.

I'm OK with that, in fact we often caution athletes that they can and will be held to higher standards than the general student population in this area as well as issues like grades, behavior, interaction with their teachers and fellow students.

What I do worry about, especially after hearing some of the commentary from the Mitchell hearings and after, is we are heading down a slippery slope where we follow the International model of suspicion less testing, where there is no probable cause.

If the school system (state) wants to continue to act in its capacity as surrogate parents, then it needs to assume the same posture that a reasonable parent or guardian would.

Where the IHSA and the testing proponents may gain some traction is that it appears as if some of the focus of the effort will be directed against supplements that are readily available over the counter. So we may be willing to criminalize or stain athletes reputations and perhaps improperly inflate the scope of the crisis by including legal supplements into the testing trap. I understand they all fall under the catch-all of Performance Enhancing Substances but the message heard by others is DRUGS and STEROIDS.

Initial reports are the IHSA will use the NCAA banned substance list as a model, so that would include things like DHEA and possibly supplements that include various banned stimulants. Some of which are legal and sold over the counter.

Interesting stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE JANUARY 20, 2008 DAILY HERALD
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=117284

Bigger, stronger, faster -- over the counter
The focus of IHSA drug-testing is not steroids but those legal supplements

Anabolic steroids get the bulk of attention.

Yet, the main focus of a new state drug testing program for high school athletes won't be illegal steroids, but the shakes, powders and pills available at drug stores, nutrition retailers and gyms across the suburbs -- and for purchase by any teen with cash.

"It's difficult for high school kids to get their hands on anabolic steroids," said Marty Hickman, executive director of the Illinois High School Association. "The over-the-counter substances are really the main concern."

Dietary supplements -- which include vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, enzymes and organ tissues -- are legal, largely unregulated, and highly alluring to teens looking to boost athletic performance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting comments by Mr. Hickman. "It's difficult for high school kids to get their hands on anabolic steroids". This begs the question, where do these high levels of use by high school kids come from? Hopefully not from the anecdotal evidence cited by Mr. Uryasz above. Hopefully not from flawed surveys conducted where kids self-report usage based on incomplete or erroneous knowledge of what they are being asked.

Also interesting comment regarding "The over-the-counter substances are really the main concern". Really, since when? What kind of bait and switch tactic is that? I've been following this issue fairly closely recently and that is not the impression I was given. It was steroids and HGH that was the apparent boogey-man and it was these substances that the powers that be developed a mandate to fight against. Over the counter supplements can be regulated by the Fed anytime they so choose. Be careful, under the guise of good intentions, this may not pass the smell test as we move further down the road. Someone may have some further explaining to do.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

With Liberty and Drug Tests, FOR ALL!!!


This from the Daily Herald. St. Viator, a suburban Chicago school is instituting a drug testing program for ALL students. WHAT A CONCEPT.

If combating drug use among youths is as strong a public policy concern as some of the hysterical ramblings we've heard lately regarding Performance Enhancing Drugs indicate it is, then we should be concerned about and combat drug abuse amongst all students equally. PERIOD.

To do otherwise indicates we are only concerned about athletes harming themselves, and not the chess club. This gives the kids who would normally succumb to peer pressure to use drugs, to be able to say, "Thanks, but if I fail the drug test, my mom won't get me a car for graduation" or whatever.

Besides, high school is supposed to be preparing kids to be productive members of the workforce and many companies today require you to produce a sample or two here and there. Although, they don't test the guy in sales after he lands a big contract for PED's now that I think about it. Not a perfect world, I guess.

St. Viator to drug-test all students in fall
BY SHEILA AHERN
sahern@dailyherald.com

Next fall, St. Viator High School students will map out routes to new classes, memorize locker combos and shop for a homecoming outfit.

This year, they can add this to the autumn back-to-school rituals: a drug test.


The 20-member St. Viator Board of Trustees has unanimously approved a new drug policy where each student will be drug-tested using a strand of hair.

Every student will be tested in the first six weeks of school, and 20 will be randomly tested weekly for the rest of the year, said the Rev. Robert Egan, president of St. Viator.


I bet this will bring back shorter haircuts amongst the boys. The only concern I would have doing it this way is if using hair samples provides a history of drug use that goes back years into the students past.


Each test costs $45. The school has budgeted $65,000 to $75,000 for the drug tests for the 2007-08 school year.

St. Viator now randomly tests for drugs only members of the boys football and hockey teams. A drug dog also visits five times a year, and random students are picked for breathalyzer tests at school dances, Egan said.


Hair samples will be tested for cocaine, opiates, PCP, marijuana, amphetamines and Ecstasy, whose use within 90 days of the test can be detected. It does not detect steroids or alcohol.

A student who refuses to be tested will be kicked out, Egan said.

The faculty and staff will not be tested.



An increasing number of schools are drug-testing athletes or those in other extracurricular activities. According to the National School Boards Association, about 5 percent of school districts drug-test athletes and 2 percent test for extracurricular activities.

In Antioch-Lake Villa High School District 117, students participating in extracurricular activities and those seeking parking permits are drug-tested.





Barker said St. Viator's tactic "seems extreme" and likens it to plopping a metal detector at a high school's front door: It primarily, he says, instills fear and suspicion in the community.

But the program is seen as a huge success at St. Patrick High School in Chicago. Since 2004, the school has spent $60,000 yearly to drug-test every student. Each year, less than 1 percent tests positive for drugs, said school spokesman Chris Nelson.

"The parents couldn't be happier," he said.


Across the nation, drug-testing high-schoolers has become increasingly popular in the past five or six years, said Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Most policies don't last more than a year, he said.


"It give these kids a way out," she said. "It's a better excuse than, 'My mom will kill me.'æ"

• Daily Herald staff writer Erin Holmes contributed to this report.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Zero for 150 - What an Epidemic!!! - Do I Hear 500??





















I suppose these high school kids all made the switch to HGH using their paper-route money once they got wind of the steroid tests. You know how these cheaters are, always one step ahead of the law.

Give me a @#$%^&*+ break.

There's $100,000 of taxpayers money well spent. Doesn't matter, it ultimately gets charged back to the participants parents in fees and time spent selling candy bars, attending car washes, etc.

Guess those inflated numbers regarding high-school users we heard about before congress and in the media were either flat-out lies or fabrications to promote an agenda. Wonder if anyone will be punished for perjuring themselves, or in this case I think the correct term is prostituting themselves.

Props to the website www.steroidnation for highlighting this story. It surely will not make the front pages or the Sports Center lead.





AP New Jersey
Random steroid tests on N.J. high schoolers all negative
February 18, 2007, 1:49 PM EST
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ New Jersey's first in-the-nation tests of high school athletes for steroid abuse showed no positive results among 150 random samples taken in the fall, according to the group that administered the tests.

All tournament-bound high schoolers randomly sampled tested negative for performance-enhancing drugs, according to Bob Baly, assistant director with the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association.

New Jersey became the first state to administer the test to athletes amid concerns that high schoolers might be bulking up to be more competitive. National studies have shown that about 2 percent of teenagers use steroids before graduating from high school.

The scholastic association, which oversees high school sports, plans to test about 500 athletes during tournaments for various sports in the 2006-07 school year. The $100,000 cost is split between the association and the state Education Department.

Baly says the money is well-spent, even if every test is negative.

"If we find out that people aren't doing something illegal because they're afraid to get caught, then we're successful," he told The Philadelphia Inquirer for Sunday newspapers.


(Emphasis added - Bad Jersey - C.S.)

In Philadelphia, St. Joseph's Prep stopped testing for steroids years ago.

"It was too costly and it wasn't productive," said Gil Brooks, who coaches St. Joseph's football team. "We didn't find anyone who tested positive."


(Emphasis added - Good Philly - C.S.)

The National Federation of State High School Associations reported in its February publication that Illinois is close to starting steroid testing among high school athletes, and that it plans to use New Jersey as its model.

(Look out Illinois - Monkey see, Monkey do - C.S.)

___

Thursday, August 10, 2006

KEEP YOUR DRUG TESTS, I'D RATHER HAVE SOGGY BALLS



Again, from the wonderful world of "You can't make some of this stuff up" sports, the Floyd Landis controversy bring up what I've been saying about drug testing in baseball for years.

People don't trust the testing to catch the cheaters (except if it's Bonds). If a popular player like Derek Jeter ever tested positive we'd hear, as we are now with Floyd, how unreliable the tests are, how they can be manipulated by anyone with an agenda. And let's face it, who doesn't have an agenda today?

So we have everyone and his cousin rushing to Floyd Landis defense with a myriad of reasons why he could have tested positive and still not cheated. THEN HOW THE F_ _ _ CAN ANYONE EVER BE EXPECTED TO TRUST THE TESTS AND THE TESTERS AGAIN? WHY HAVE TESTING IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Keep the tests, I don't trust them or the people administering them anymore. It's a joke and it always has been. Look at the Olympics over the past twenty or thirty years and the world of cycling and track. That's the path these idiots want to lead baseball down.

So this week, in walks Jeff Cirrillo with his "Soggy Balls" theory as to why offense is down in "Coors Canaveral". A stadium that in the past made the "Launching Pad" in Atlanta look like a pitcher-friendly ballpark in comparison,.

Runs in Colorado are way down, shutouts are way up since the club was granted permission by MLB to manipulate the composition of the baseballs via the humidor. I wonder how baseball knew that this would correlate to lower, more reasonable numbers. Of course, we have to have our statistical integrity, or the game will die.

They knew it would happen because MLB is the old pro at manipulating the consistency of the baseball to either raise offensive numbers or lower them. They did it before to raise the attendance level. They could also decide to raise the mound or lower it further, if they so desire.
All in the interest of manipulating offense to effect changes in fan interest and therefore attendance and TV ratings. That translates into dollars.

If you wanted steroids out of the game, make the consistency of the ball more like a bean bag and you could tell your steroid jackers, "Go ahead, swing for the fences, you muscle bound retard". A couple of warning track flyouts and a .230 average later and these guys will be looking for jobs as bouncers at Studio 54.

You can thank me later for solving the "Steroid Crisis" without involving Congress (they should be busy what with the Middle East crisis, Korean Missile Crisis, Terrorism, to say nothing about the myriad economic issues at home they should be dealing with), the media, WADA, USADA or any other group of idiots you can name who have been overly involved in the issue recently.

They're not going to move the fences back, that costs seats, expensive behind the plate box seats. And that's revenue students. So that's not going to happen. But it would be the easiest solution.

Devalue the HR a little bit, if you must. But then don't complain when fans vote with their wallets and attendance comes down after a plethora of 2-1 and 1-0 games unfolds. Or when teams start to value speed and the SB again. Remember the early 80's, the St. Louis Cardinals of Vince Coleman and Willie McGee and 70 HR's as a team? And four and a half-hour games because pitchers had to hold runners on so much. Gosh, who didn't love that style of baseball??

As always, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.


Other Interesting articles:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...section=si_mlb
Cirillo suggests balls at Coors Field are waterlogged

Coors Field is tied with Comerica Park in Detroit for the most shutouts in the majors this year with 10, including six by Rockies pitchers.

Cirillo, who played two seasons in Colorado pre-humidor, agreed the Rockies have better pitching now, "but at the same time, does that mean the rest of the league has better pitching, also?"

"It's pretty dramatic, wouldn't you say? Most shutouts in Coors Field, in the National League, when you take into account Petco, Dodger Stadium, where Washington plays. Those are huge parks," Cirillo said.

Runs have never been harder to score at Coors Field since the stadium opened in 1995. The average game now features a combined nine runs -- down from 15 runs that were scored a decade ago. Of course, the Rockies don't have the Blake Street Bombers hitting home runs all over the place as they did back then.

It was pretty well agreed by most in the know that PHDs were more rampant then, but perhaps more importantly The balls were juiced, too! Bug Selig all but admitted that the material used to wind around the pill was changed "around 1996" to a new synthetic that allowed 20% longer, thinner material, much tighter winding of the syntho-wool, and therefore a livlier ball that still conformed to the weight and diameter rules. The folks at Rawlings will only say all the MLB balls were once stitched in the Dominican Republic, then Haiti, and finally now in Costa Rica, but would offer no details as to the winding process or materials.

Evidently the Rockies can do anything they choose with the balls once they've been unsealed, but only if they are supervised by the umpiring crew. All conspiracy crybabies should be aware that the homeplate ump is the guy that puts balls in the pitchers hands, and likewise takes them out of the game.

Do you think the guys in blue would actually allow "heavy" balls to be used in the games they work? Cirillo just might be a few french fries short of a happy meal on this one.

and some excerpts from a Baseball Prospectus Article by Joe Sheehan
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5386

If you’d told someone in June of 2004 that two years hence, one of every six or so games at Coors Field would end in a shutout, you would have been laughed out of the room.

How is this happening? Those close to the Rockies will cite a crop of young pitchers developing in concert, a younger team featuring an improved defense, higher grass and even a grand design before they’ll mention the humidor.

The humidor was first used in 2002 in an attempt by the team to control scoring in one of the greatest run environments in MLB history. According to the linked story by the Denver Post’s Mike Klis, the Rockies began storing their baseballs in a climate-controlled room at 40% humidity to keep the balls from drying out in Denver’s thinner, drier air. The idea wasn’t to make the balls dead, but to make them more like the ones used at lower altitudes. There was a great hue and cry over the issue, but Coors Field remained a great hitters’ park, the best one in baseball from 2002-2005, albeit not quite as extreme as it had been before. The Rockies, set astray by The Great Change-up Experiment in 2001 (Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle were signed to $170 million worth of contracts and proceeded to implode), weren’t any more successful in those years than they’d been in the previous four.

In any given season, one park or another might have been better for some event than Coors Field was--81 games isn’t a large enough sample to overcome variance, which is why most analysts use multi-year park factors for rigorous work—but no park was consistently in the top five of all three categories. You can see a drop in the home-run factor in 2005, a dip that may have foreshadowed things to come.

This year, the changed used of the humidor has made Coors Field, at more than 5,000 feet above sea level, a pitchers’ park. There’s no question, none at all, that Jeff Cirillo is onto something here. Coors Field has become a below-average place for run scoring, despite the thinner air at high altitude, and with no change in the park.

For years, Coors Field was the best place in baseball to make contact. You hit the ball, good things happen, more than they did anywhere. There was a wobble last season, which might well have been written off as a personnel matter--the Rockies had improved pitching and a wretched offense--if it hadn’t been followed up by this year’s line. Coors Field is now average in turning batted balls into extra-base hits and homers, and slightly above when it comes to doing the same with flyballs. For the first time I can recall, it’s also not the safest place for a ball in play. Even conceding that the above are park stats and not park factors, the extremes listed make a compelling argument that the natural order of things has been badly upset.

Think about why Coors Field is such a good hitters’ park. The air in Denver is thinner than it is at sea level, so it provides less resistance, less drag, on struck balls. Robert Adair, author of The Physics of Baseball, estimated this effect at 9% for an average fly ball. This is the biggest reason why Denver is such a great place to hit. Another reason is that the same thin air makes it harder to throw good breaking stuff, because breaking balls need that same resistance to do their dancing. Finally, a common complaint by pitchers was the dry Denver air made it hard to grip the baseball, adding to problems with command, especially of breaking balls, as the baseballs become slicker, harder and, according to some, smaller.

Now, soaking the baseballs in milk, or whatever it is they’re doing, addresses the first of those problems and the last. Heavier baseballs mean more resistance, which is one reason why there’s a cap--5 ¼ ounces--on the weight of a baseball. But they shouldn’t have much effect on the second other that some improvement in pitchers’ ability to grip the ball. The thin air is still not going to mix real well with breaking pitches.

As you can see, Coors Field has been a terrible place for pitchers to get results on their own. If the humidor is tuned to cancel out the effect of dryness--a problem that was only raised to crisis levels once the humidor came to be--it shouldn’t be enough to turn Coors Field into a pitchers’ park. Adair’s 9% should still be affecting things. The humidor is overcorrecting for the dryness, having a minor effect on command, but the real driver of run prevention is that the humidor is producing baseballs that simply don’t travel.

Now, the Rockies don’t want any part of this. They want to point to Jeff Francis and Aaron Cook and Jason Jennings and say that the lowered run scoring is the end result of having good pitchers. If this is about personnel, then the Rockies’ pitchers should be showing improvement at home and on the road, and in their peripherals as well as their ERAs.

HOME

IP ERA BFP/K BFP/BB K/BB BFP/H BFP/HR BFP/XBH
2006 494.0 4.03 6.44 12.95 2.01 4.23 37.04 12.87
2005 735.0 5.18 6.56 12.61 1.92 3.86 39.48 11.55
2004 733.0 6.27 7.02 10.32 1.47 3.78 31.15 10.57
2003 737.0 5.07 6.92 14.52 2.10 3.86 27.93 10.61

ROAD

IP ERA BFP/K BFP/BB K/BB BFP/H BFP/HR BFP/XBH
2006 451.2 4.32 6.52 14.12 2.17 4.20 56.05 12.58
2005 683.2 5.07 6.45 10.69 1.66 4.15 33.73 11.08
2004 702.1 4.77 6.77 11.06 1.63 4.27 35.33 12.29
2003 683.0 5.35 7.86 11.22 1.43 3.96 37.30 11.86

We’re on to something here. This is an improved pitching staff. Look at the road numbers: Rockies’ pitchers have cut their ERAs, improved their command and dramatically improved their home-run rate from one season to the next. You can see the effects of the humidor at home in the vastly decreased hit rate and extra-base hit rate, but it’s clear that this Rockies’ staff is not entirely the product of wet baseballs.

Over two years, the difference is even more stark. The Rockies allowed a .501 slugging and .194 isolated power at home in 2004. This year, those numbers are .420 and .155. Some percentage of that is the pitchers, and how you assign credit among the hurlers and the humidor depends largely on your proximity to Blake Street.

Earlier this year, I wrote about how the use of the humidor was a mistake because it homogenized the baseball world. While conceding that playing at altitude presented challenges for the Rockies, I lamented the loss of a unique environment. At the time, I didn’t think that Coors would play neutral all season long, and I was right; it’s become a better pitchers’ park as the year has worn on.

I don’t blame the Rockies at all. They’re convinced that their best chance to win is to deaden the baseballs and create a nine-run environment. That they had their most success as a franchise when they hit the snot out of the ball--while getting adequate starting pitching and great relief work--hasn’t registered. There’s nothing wrong with them asking for permission to alter the baseballs in a manner that fits their needs. However, they shouldn’t be able to turn a ballpark one mile high into what it’s become today, a slight pitchers’ park. MLB, which approved the humidor plan to begin with, has to step in and restore order. There’s no way--no way--that Coors Field should play neutral. You want to bring it with a certain distance of the other parks, that’s fine, but you can’t mess with the baseballs so much that it cancels out all the run-enhancing effects of the altitude.

In the case of the Rockies, they’ve implemented a solution that has radically changed the way the games are played at home. If the massive effects of the humidor are acceptable to MLB, then I believe it opens the door for teams looking to make less-radical changes. What I’d prefer, though, is for the league to step in and take a stand on how wet is too wet. Well, what I’d prefer is for no tampering with the baseballs at all, but I don’t think that will happen.

What I do know is that Jeff Cirillo is right. The baseballs in use at Coors Field have been modified in a way that completely changes the game played there. Where batted balls used to go for hits, extra-base hits and home runs, they now become outs. If you want to give some credit to the Rockies’ pitchers, you can, but the primary reason is the humidor. Cirillo’s conspiracy theories are wrong--there’s no swapping of dry and wet baseballs depending on the Rockies’ situation--but he’s right to point out what should have been obvious all along.

Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Next Let's Ban Performance Enchancing Tents???




Not to beat a dead horse again but I have to say. "Are you bleeping kidding me?". I'm not sure where this all stops once it's started, but can you feel the slipperiness of the slope?

I hope so, the world is full of natural and unnatural advantages, part of the beauty of sports is teaching kids to overcome them. The feeling I get from the "level the playing field" crowd is eventually we give everyone a medal, same color, or metal. Just like in T-Ball. Unbelievable.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/sports/othersports/26altitude.html

Live at Altitude? Sure. Sleep There? Hmm.
By GINA KOLATA
Published: July 26, 2006


Three of the top United States cyclists in this year's Tour de France
use a special method to enhance their performance, and it is legal.
They sleep in altitude tents or altitude rooms that simulate the low-
oxygen conditions of high altitude. This prompts the body to make
more oxygen-carrying red blood cells and can lead to improved
endurance.

Not everyone agrees about how effective altitude training really is,
but many athletes and trainers are firm believers. Athletes who can
afford it, and whose schedules permit it, often sleep at altitude in
the mountains and travel to lower altitudes during the day to train.
Others use the modern method; they sleep in altitude tents, which
start at about $5,000 at Colorado Altitude Training, a major
supplier. Or they convert a bedroom, spending about $25,000. Some
have even spent millions of dollars to convert an entire building.
"Ninety-five percent of the medals that have been won at Olympic
Games have been won by people who train at or live at altitude," said
Joe Vigil, who coaches Deena Kastor. She holds the United States
women's record in the marathon. Kastor lives in Mammoth Lakes,
Calif., at an altitude of 7,800 feet, and often trains at sea level.
The decision on whether to ban hypoxic devices has taken many
athletes and exercise physiologists by surprise, but the antidoping
agency has quietly spent the past few years considering the issue,
said Dr. Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research
Center. Saltin was a member of the agency's health medicine and
research committee until two years ago.

"We have discussed the issue a lot," he said.

In Saltin's opinion, the altitude tents and rooms are no different
from going to "a suitable mountain area," only cheaper. Banning the
altitude tents or rooms, he said, "should not be on the WADA or
International Olympic Committee's priority list."

"This is a pretty slippery slope," he said. "WADA is going to lose
their credibility with the scientific community, upon whom they
depend to further their mission, by pursuing this. And how to enforce
it is a whole different question."

In addition to Levine's letter, the Center for Sports Law and Policy
at the Duke University School of Law recently issued a position paper
opposing the notion of banning the altitude tents and rooms.
The key question for Murray, of the Hastings Center, and the WADA
ethics advisory panel in preparing their report was how to define
what it meant to violate the spirit of sport. They decided that a
violation would be a purely passive activity that nonetheless
enhanced performance.

"When we think about great performances, we think about athletes who
train very hard and are disciplined on top of their natural talents,"
Murray said. And most of the legal performance-enhancing equipment,
like fiberglass poles for the pole vault, "requires the active
engagement of the athlete in learning to use it."

Others, like Levine, take issue with the notion that being passive is
a key distinction. The biological response to training, Levine says,
occurs during rest and recovery, and athletes plan those periods as
carefully as they do their active training. "It is a very serious
error to look at an athlete lying quietly and assume they
are `passive,' " he said.

Levine added that he thought it was problematic to point to altitude
tents or rooms when there are other legal and passive measures that
athletes use to enhance performance - sitting in a sauna to acclimate
to heat and humidity, or wearing a cooling vest or sitting in cold
water to cool their bodies before a race in hot weather. Why not ban
those practices, too, Levine said.

"The fact that we can think of cases that are difficult does not mean
we can't draw lines," Murray said.

Murray acknowledged that athletes who go to the mountains can get the
same effect as sleeping in an altitude tent. But, he said, in his
opinion that was not a compelling reason to say that altitude tents
were within the spirit of sport.

"There are some people who are in a sense geographically fortunate,"
Murray said.

Alberto Salazar, a former champion marathoner who coaches elite
distance runners for Nike, said that if the World Anti-Doping Agency
were to ban altitude tents and rooms, the effect on United States
distance runners would be devastating. Nike has outfitted the
bedrooms of its athletes to make them altitude chambers, Salazar
said, adding that about 40 percent of the athletes increase their red-
blood-cell count as a result.

"Altitude training is absolutely essential," Salazar said. "Any
athlete who wants to be competitive in the world scene would have to
move to altitude or cheat by using an altitude room or taking illegal
drugs."

Moving to a high altitude is not feasible for many who have jobs and
families elsewhere, Salazar said. Of course, he added, runners from
Kenya do not have that problem because many of them live at high
altitudes.

"How many Americans or Western Europeans do we have that are
competitive with the best athletes in the world? Very few," Salazar
said. "We've got such small numbers, do we need another handicap? Do
we need to tell them that the second they graduate from college they
have to move to altitude?"

Murray said he knew the issue was fraught, and he welcomed debate.
"Lines can be very difficult to draw, there is no question about it,"
he said. But if there are no lines, he added, "whatever you like
about the sport will disappear."

He added, "This is a healthy conversation to be having."

The "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS" Awards




With apologies to and admiration for John McEnroe, whose rendition of "you cannot be serious" is the inspriation for the Award. The following items are so egregious as to merit anger and outrage at that level.

ESPN: for firing Harold Reynolds. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. Does Jeff Brantley have a no-fire clause in his contract? Or picture of top-executives of ESPN in compromising positions in his possession? He'd have gone first in my book.

What about the other Yoda wannabe John Kruk? Are we appealing to the much coveted 35-55, spit tobacco swilling, writes with a crayon demographic here? Then he's expendable.

How about Steve Phillips? This guy is giving advice to the Yankees to trade A-Rod? Does he not recall that it was his trade of Scott Kazmir for a box of rocks that resulted in his dismissal from the Mets? This is like Dr. Kervorkian giving advice to the American Medical Association.

How about the ethical wizard Doug Gottlieb. Keep you hand on your wallet when he's on the air that's all anyone can say about this guy.

And how about the fool that is Eric Karros? During a recent Yankees braodcast this fool was tossed a softball question by his play by play man re: whether Yankee captain Derek Jeter should have in some way come to the defense of A-Rod given his recent treatment by Yankes fans. Karros lent nothing, simply regurgitating Jeter's quotes that he doesn't have the cache to chastise Yankee fans. THE HELL HE DOESN'T!!! Let's just count the ways shall we?

1) He's the freaking captain of the team, BE A LEADER!!!
2) this is his supposed good friend as well as teammate (at least that's what we were told when A-Rod came on board)
3) He stood up when Yankee fans gave Jason Giambi what-for after the steroids fiasco. So you can stand up for a cheater and a liar, but not your friend?
4) Pee Wee Reese did as much or more symbollically for Jackie Robinson when Brooklyn Dodger fans treated him like fans on the road where when he first started playing and you best believe it sent a message to Dodger fans and improved things, and I guess, thank God he had the courage to do so.

Derek Jeter: You get a large "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS" , in my mind, based on words and behavior in l'affaire A-Rod, you go from being the face of baseball to the ass-face of baseball.
Give back the "C" if you don't know how to handle it.

Floyd Landis: Tour de France winner, alleged doper based on the A sample anyway. He claims his testosterone levels are naturally high. Does this give us much hope for the results of the B sample? Or was this sample taken after any event that would have substantially lowered the level enough to pass the test? If you have abnormally high levels naturally, wouldn't you have failed most prior tests? Including the six taken at prior points in the Tour> But you've never failed one in the past right? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. OK, Next?

To all the fools at WADA, USADA and any other aphabet soup pseudo-nazi organization that wants to mainstream this type of drug testing protocol not only in all major sports but down to the high school sports level in this country. Let's see if I understand how this works.....You've splashed crimson red paint all over Landis reputation based on his A sample, but wait says one of the experts in the field of cycling, the B sample could test negative and exonerate him.

Presumably it's the same piss, but then what does that say about the test? We still have one positive vs. one negative, of course we exonerate, but then we're back to the damage to his rep appears on page one and the reatraction appears on page ten. And the original stain of the initial charge lingers forever, I repeat FOREVER.

And we want these jack-booted, idiots making policy in this country? I heard one of these talking heads speculating that the positive could have been caused by a) the couple of beers Landis had to rinse away his prior days disappointing performance and b) the coritsone shots he took for his hip. You're going to eliminate most competitors in every major sports league on the basis of those two conditions, I can assure you of that right know.

This same talking head opined that Landis had low testosterone levels but a high ratio of testosterone to epistosterone. First off, what is epistosterone? Regular testosterone gay cousin? And, second Landis comes out the next day saying he had naturally high levels of the big-T. Can't have it both ways, get your stories straight before you go on air please. So here we are in this state of affairs in the sports world, all because white America can't stomach Barry Bonds being the home-run king. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.

Giants Top Minor League Prospects

  • 1. Joey Bart 6-2, 215 C Power arm and a power bat, playing a premium defensive position. Good catch and throw skills.
  • 2. Heliot Ramos 6-2, 185 OF Potential high-ceiling player the Giants have been looking for. Great bat speed, early returns were impressive.
  • 3. Chris Shaw 6-3. 230 1B Lefty power bat, limited defensively to 1B, Matt Adams comp?
  • 4. Tyler Beede 6-4, 215 RHP from Vanderbilt projects as top of the rotation starter when he works out his command/control issues. When he misses, he misses by a bunch.
  • 5. Stephen Duggar 6-1, 170 CF Another toolsy, under-achieving OF in the Gary Brown mold, hoping for better results.
  • 6. Sandro Fabian 6-0, 180 OF Dominican signee from 2014, shows some pop in his bat. Below average arm and lack of speed should push him towards LF.
  • 7. Aramis Garcia 6-2, 220 C from Florida INTL projects as a good bat behind the dish with enough defensive skill to play there long-term
  • 8. Heath Quinn 6-2, 190 OF Strong hitter, makes contact with improving approach at the plate. Returns from hamate bone injury.
  • 9. Garrett Williams 6-1, 205 LHP Former Oklahoma standout, Giants prototype, low-ceiling, high-floor prospect.
  • 10. Shaun Anderson 6-4, 225 RHP Large frame, 3.36 K/BB rate. Can start or relieve
  • 11. Jacob Gonzalez 6-3, 190 3B Good pedigree, impressive bat for HS prospect.
  • 12. Seth Corry 6-2 195 LHP Highly regard HS pick. Was mentioned as possible chip in high profile trades.
  • 13. C.J. Hinojosa 5-10, 175 SS Scrappy IF prospect in the mold of Kelby Tomlinson, just gets it done.
  • 14. Garett Cave 6-4, 200 RHP He misses a lot of bats and at times, the plate. 13 K/9 an 5 B/9. Wild thing.

2019 MLB Draft - Top HS Draft Prospects

  • 1. Bobby Witt, Jr. 6-1,185 SS Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) Oklahoma commit. Outstanding defensive SS who can hit. 6.4 speed in 60 yd. Touched 97 on mound. Son of former major leaguer. Five tool potential.
  • 2. Riley Greene 6-2, 190 OF Haggerty HS (FL) Florida commit.Best HS hitting prospect. LH bat with good eye, plate discipline and developing power.
  • 3. C.J. Abrams 6-2, 180 SS Blessed Trinity HS (GA) High-ceiling athlete. 70 speed with plus arm. Hitting needs to develop as he matures. Alabama commit.
  • 4. Reece Hinds 6-4, 210 SS Niceville HS (FL) Power bat, committed to LSU. Plus arm, solid enough bat to move to 3B down the road. 98MPH arm.
  • 5. Daniel Espino 6-3, 200 RHP Georgia Premier Academy (GA) LSU commit. Touches 98 on FB with wipe out SL.

2019 MLB Draft - Top College Draft Prospects

  • 1. Adley Rutschman C Oregon State Plus defender with great arm. Excellent receiver plus a switch hitter with some pop in the bat.
  • 2. Shea Langliers C Baylor Excelent throw and catch skills with good pop time. Quick bat, uses all fields approach with some pop.
  • 3. Zack Thompson 6-2 LHP Kentucky Missed time with an elbow issue. FB up to 95 with plenty of secondary stuff.
  • 4. Matt Wallner 6-5 OF Southern Miss Run producing bat plus mid to upper 90's FB closer. Power bat from the left side, athletic for size.
  • 5. Nick Lodolo LHP TCU Tall LHP, 95MPH FB and solid breaking stuff.