say it ain't so

Thank you

For a measured, rational reply to this.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 9:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks V

has any baseball team ever had a season like this one ---- ever???

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope not. I wouldn't wish this season of turmoil and injury on my worst enemy, not even the Cubs. Ok, maybe on the Cubs. Interesting timing of the article by the NY Daily News though. Rick hits two homers and has 7 RBIs in one game and boom, the article appears. Hope Rick can clear his name and do so quickly. The Cards have more important tasks in front of them - like getting ahead of the Cubs and Brewers in the standings.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the timing is just a coincidence

the main factors a newspaper weighs when deciding when (not "if") to go with a story are

have the lawyers signed off on it?
is there a chance somebody might beat us on the story?

yesterday's box score and today's standings aren't major considerations.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

as i said in one of the diaries, it's unlikely the timing was motivated by, e.g., the playoff race - but if it was, that motivation was almost certainly not the daily news'; it was their source's.

The Cardinals are coming, tra la, tra la

by nycbirdo on Sep 7, 2007 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not entirely true...

I talked to a friend who works for a well respected paper today about how coincidentally this story came out the night after Ankiels offensive explosion, and he said that they most likely were sitting on it. If Ankiel comes up, and fails miserably, there is no real story there. But if he comes up, and does great, well....obviously now there is a story.

- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i disagree with that

if they were sitting on it until he had a 2-hr, 7-rbi day, they likely would have sat on it forever.

the longer the daily news sat on the story, the more likely it was that ankiel would go into a slump and the buzz surrounding him wears off. ankiel became a big story the day he returned to the big leagues, and he has remained a big story ever since.

if ankiel had come back and was hitting .210 with 1 homer and 6 rbi, then they might not have been in such a hurry to get this into print. but i can guarantee you that they didn't sit on this thing for long, if at all --- and to the extent they did sit on it, it was because the lawyers made them.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you Larry...

If they have had this story for a while, they have had many opportunities in the last week where Rick has been a big headline...albeit not like yesterday, but you can't assume that he would ever have a day like yesterday so it makes no sense to wait for it. Here are his lines for the last week (formatted horribly):

DATE    OPP    RESULT    AB    R    H    2B    3B    HR    RBI
8/31    CIN    W 8-5    5    1    2    0    0    1    4
9/1    CIN    W 11-3    4    2    3    1    0    0    3
9/2    CIN    W 3-2    3    1    1    0    0    1    2
9/3    PIT    L 0-11    2    0    0    0    0    0    0
9/4    PIT    W 6-2    3    2    1    1    0    0    1
9/5    PIT    L 2-8    4    1    1    0    0    1    2
9/6    PIT    W 16-4    4    4    3    1    0    2    7

by cardzfanbub on Sep 7, 2007 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

In fact, a KSDK reporter this morning mentioned that up to 14 other players may have received HGH from this same source. So where are their names? Why wasn't the lead story "JO BLOW from the Florida Marlins linked to HGH"?

"The two most important things in life: good friends and a strong bullpen." - Bob Gibson

by birds 4 life on Sep 7, 2007 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I worked as a reporter for several papers ...

...including the LA Times, and the idea that someone would sit on a story like this is ludicrous. As soon as you've got a decent source, speaking on the record (or off if your editor will sign off on it), you run the story. This is particularly true in a case like this, where it seems the evidence would be likely discovered by another news outlet.

Many nobodies and also-rans have been implicated for PHD use, and nobody was "sitting" on those. As Cardinal fans and Ankiel boosters, it might feel like "the media" is out to get us, but that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

by bgodar on Sep 7, 2007 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a case of

"our players NEVER, EVER do anything wrong, and don't you dare say anything like that!" Blind loyalty is not always a pretty thing, ya know...

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2007 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually the LA Times has a well documented . . .

. . of doing just that. One needs only to go back to before the Governator was elected. They held an old story about groping until right before the election to try to kill his chances.

by CheapSeats on Sep 7, 2007 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

but it worked out nicely for the Daily News. Ankiel was already big news that day and they print a story about him. So attention was focused on Rick to start with and that just increased the name recognition factor for their news story, especially among readers who don't follow baseball that closely.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are in the business of selling papers

It seems likely that they were sitting on the story until a time when they could get the most punch out of their headline. Just look at the glaring headline and the formatting of the page--how can anyone doubt that sensationalism isn't part of how the story is framed? (A picture of it is on the Rick Ankiel diary)

It's a much better story when Ankiel has 2HR and 7 RBI day and when the Cards are 1 game back. That gives them their splashy lines of questioning the comeback kid and the surging Card's who are now contenders (they couldn't have done it w/o Ankiel, so the story goes).

And if the reporters were just being professsional, then they should have put pertinent facts into the beginning of the story (like MLB did)--the legal prescription, the pre-ban 2004 date, etc. Rather, they framed the story in terms of his current performance and bury the context in the middle of the sory. It's a professional decision to present the story in a way that can easily mislead a reader who is skimming.

At least from my perspective--having to put up with the a lot of sensationalist BS from New York papers--I'm surprised by what seems like some people's naive sense of reporters motivations and choices about when and how to report a big story.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

since i've worked in a newsroom

and you haven't, nycard, i don't think i'm the naive one here. . . .

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well perhaps you haven't worked in all newsrooms

one of the areas I work in is politics and I know NY reporters who freely admit that big stories are often sat on until the right moment--either because it makes a better, splashier headline (thus a better seller) or for political reasons.

Looking at the page, how can one not think the story is presented in a sensatinalist way? Just look at its presentation.

What I think is naive is if someone believes reporters are not driven by motivations, whether they commercial, or having the biggest story they can have, or with the intent to smear someone's reputation and gain an edge over an opponent (politics remember). This is always a possibility. It's not always a reality. But it's a possibility.

I wasn't directing the comment to you but to readers in general. I don't know what you think about that.

To me it's naive to have ucritical faith in the purity of journalist's motives. But maybe that comes from my line of work and stories I've heard from journalists I know.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course it's sensationalized

and yes, making a big splash with a story is a primary motive for reporters and editors.

but it's not the only motive ---- their motives are complex, and they are often at odds with the motives of the publishers, ad salesmen, circulation folks, branding consultants, legal consultants, and other professionals who make up the newspaper enterprise. it is a real tug of war with a lot of motivations, often cross-cutting ones.

there is a simplistic argument afoot that the ny daily news' editorial staff cooked up a little scheme to tear down rick ankiel just when his story reached the height of its feel-goodness. i'm saying that newspaper decisions are far more complex than that.

the motives are rarely "pure," but even if a story is driven by raw greed or by the publisher's personal animus against a powerful interest, it still doesn't discredit the story as long as it's properly reported and sourced.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing

I've read this blog for several months now, and I don't think I've EVER seen lboros print something that wasn't intelligently thought out. I worked in a newsroom for six years and saw stories that were "sat on" and others that were printed as soon as they had enough sourcing to cover their backsides. You can't generalize. That said, I hope Ankiel does exactly what lboros suggested.

Personally, I think we got hosed on that call.

by TurdFerguson on Sep 7, 2007 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I work

in a newsroom as well and second Larry's view. This was going to be a sensation story regardless whether Ankiel had three extra-base hits yesterday or went 0-for-4. The idea that they would hold it waiting for him to have a career game doesn't make much sense.

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just to throw my hat in the ring

As a young journalist myself, let me assure you that the absolute last thing the print media is good at is sitting on a story. If they have something they're going to try to get it out there first, because that's how the business works. I won't argue about the sensationalism of stories like these, but that's also part of the turf. Let's see where this goes before we start swinging bats at the reporters involved.

The Falcoholic
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog

by Dave the Falconer on Sep 7, 2007 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And let's not forget,

it isn't the REPORTERS who are deciding on the photos, the splashy headline, or the placement. Those are editors' decisions. Let's not tar the guys who are doing the footwork on this story. If it were up to the reporters the whole thing might very well have been addressed in a different way.

"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 7, 2007 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have people not watched elections?

stories get used all the time by all sorts of different parties for all sorts of different reasons. And accusations fly back and forth often about why stories come out when they do. There's lots of finger pointing because it's always a possibility. Reporters work in different areas and in different cities.

Many New York reporters run in rougher political circles than other parts of the country and some definitely use information in a messy sensationalist way according to their interests and timeline.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a little naive

To assume reporters have that much control over when their articles come out and when they're commissioned to write them. Whether reporters have an agenda in digging up a particular story I can't say for certain, but timing has everything to do with editors and publishers, as sdesserman noted. Reporters report and write the copy, but an editor then can change around the story, tack a huge headline on it and choose when and where it appears in the paper.

So if the writing itself is sensationalized, take a look at the reporter. But if you have a quibble with the timing, either look at the editor or understand that it's always a race to the finish in the news business.

The Falcoholic
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog

by Dave the Falconer on Sep 7, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I take issue with how the information

was presented. They give a distorted picture in the begining of the story and only later provide important facts concerning time and legality.

Initially, HGH is mentioned in terms of Rick's recent comeback; then it links Rick to a company being investigated for illegal drug distribution. They choose not to state early on that Rick had a prescription for this in 2004 before it was banned and that he was recovering from an injury. Unless you read the whole story, someone could easily think he is taking the drug now and that his behavior is clearly illegal.

They wait until the middle of the story to give the pertinent facts. That was clearly a choice, not an accident. And it is a choice that differs from the MLB presentation. The NY story is set up to draw readers in by being scintillating. Only later do you realize that the story is not so sensationalist as it first seemed.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think it's distorted

it's presented this way to foreground the newsworthy part of the story --- he received the shipments from a pharmacy that is accused of running an illegal drug-distribution racket, nationwide.

don't you wonder why was he doing business with that sort of outfit? i do.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they set it solely in the context of his recent

surge to pull readers in (silence can be an act you know). When you leave out the details, seemingly intentionally, and the story sounds more sensational than it actually is, I think that's distorting. And it is especially so if a reader skimming the piece can easily come away thinking that Ankiel is illegally using a drug now. Writers know what they are doing in how they tell you the information they have. The order of a story is always important.

If they had been upfront with all the information like MLB was, I would have no complaint. There story was very good. But they chose not to do that.

I'm sure our experience predisposes us to see news stories more or less skeptically. If you worked in a newsroom with reporters and editors as colleagues and I've worked in the area of politics and public policy, with all the infighting that involves (and that includes journalists), it's natural that we would probably view the structuring of a story like this differently.

We should just agree to disagree.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i've worked in politics / policy too

and i'm as critical of shoddy journalism as the next person. probably more so.

but this isn't shoddy journalism.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shoddy vs Sensationalist?

I agree that with the apparent abundance of facts, this appears to be anything BUT shoddy journalism.

However, I also agree that it clearly appears to be intentionally sensationalized journalism, no doubt in part by the editors' "contributions" to the story, layout, headline, etc.

Both of those can be true.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Sep 7, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Location

I doubt the list of HGH compounding pharmacies is very long. I don't know many of the facts, but it was my understanding that Signature Pharmacy ran a legit licensed pharmacy as a front to the illegal stuff. If that's true, not every customer receiving a prescription knew they were dealing with a nationwide illegal drug ring.

That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

by kemime on Sep 7, 2007 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's a very interesting point

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i can assert

with absolute certainty that the authors of this story had nothing to do with any holding of the story. there is nothing naive about my knowledge of the "reporters' motivations and choices."

i cannot however, do the same for the editor or publishers of the daily news...

by sdesserman on Sep 7, 2007 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree V

I agree with you and lboros, he has to come out or it will grow, as it stands we can assume all we want any way we want and until any response is given I will assume the best because it is best for my happiness but if he gives a small statement or no response then I will probably change my assumption pretty quickly and be more harsh to him until then I am one naive person.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree 100 percent.

He MUST face this head-on, and fast. No dissembling, no "spokespersons," no bullshit. Unfortunately those characteristics aren't hallmarks of the Cardinal organization. I hope Boras is smart enough to push hard to make sure that happens.

My concern is that Ankiel is later going to pushed to take it a step further and rat out some other people. How did he find out about this doctor and his clinic? Probably was steered there by another player. Let's hope he keeps his mouth shut in that respect (unless he really found this doctor by perusing the Yellow Pages).

"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 7, 2007 9:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

he had a prescription for the drugs, and they're legal with a prescription; and he received them in 2004, before mlb instituted its formal prohibition on steroids. therefore, ankiel didn't break any rules or do anything wrong --- right?

Yes. Simple as that.

Actually, have MLB and George Mitchell look into the matter if both parties are serious about investigating performance enhancing drug use in the sport.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

if i hear that straight from ankiel's mouth

i will give the interpretation a lot more credence. but until he states it himself, it's not a defense. it's an excuse.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It isn't as simple as that

you 'assume' that this is an isolated incident and not just the tip of the iceberg. We 'assume' Rick only got one scrip and it was from his doctor this one time.

Who is to say he didn't go doctor shopping once MLB banned the substance?

I'd like to give Rick the benefit of the doubt. He'd brought me great joy over this last month and brought forth a great deal of emotion over what he was able to acheive. But, as a fan of baseball who has lived through the last 15 years, you can't give ANY player the benefit of the doubt.

The Cardinals and Rick will go into 'bunker' mentality, again, like they do with every story. This story won't go away.

Another fantastic turn in the season from hell.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

you 'assume' that this is an isolated incident and not just the tip of the iceberg. We 'assume' Rick only got one scrip and it was from his doctor this one time.

I'm basing my opinion on what I know from several published reports including the NYDN article. I'm not "assuming" anything.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a very

"If I don't see it, it isn't happening' approach.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right, But More Like The Opposite.

Explain...

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do you assume this is Rick's only

foray into usage? Because of one sentence in the story? That sentence only implies that Rick stopped getting HGH from Signature before 2005.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but you're assuming

a guilty until proven innocent mentality. the story is inconclusive, and without further investigation, no one knows how much farther it goes.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

3rd hand knowlege

I have heard from several rumors that Ankiel has been involved in drug use ranging from performance-enhancing variety to the more, ummmm, recreational variety. Would that not make it hard to deny illegal drug activity if he was involved in recreational drug use?

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at least for now

they are just that: rumors. 3rd hand ones at that. if we're going to start saying that players seem more likely to have been on PED's because of recreational drug use (can you say marijuana?) then we're really going to paint half the league with the big-head barry brush.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rabid.

I would not post the comment if I didn't completely trust my source. Marijuana is not what I was referring to (think Speezer). However, I really don't care what Rick did (does) with his own time. I was just pointing out that denying illegal drug activity may put him in a precarious position related to his other habits.

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Sep 7, 2007 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This team

and Cardinals teams from the past few years have had some issues. It's pretty much an open secret in town; but they're also rich 20-somethings, it isn't exactly surprising.

Hello, playoff mosey

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2007 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you should not be spreading rumors

without evidence. Period.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is a

guilty until proven innocent world out there. i agree with that, we the people are not the law. we are not in court so we can assume whatever we want, isnt that how it works? these days, everyone in the people's eye is guilty until proven innocent.

2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

while true

this is a sad state we are in as a nation. the lowest common denominator will always be the rabble crying for blood, but the trick is to keep the sources of information at least somewhat above that sort of witchhunting. unfortunately, since you'll never lose money telling the people what they want to believe, there's little money in objective fact these days. damned infotainment. somehow, this is john tesh's fault.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, stay with the known facts

this is beginning to sound like a feeding frenzy...

We can deal with future information if it comes out; it's unfair to saddle Ankiel with the worst when we have no evidence to base that on. We should just stay with what we now. And that's not being overprotective or being too much of a fan or sticking our head in the sand. That's simply being fair and judicious.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Prove.

Can you prove, right now, that Ankiel used HGH after 2004? I know, right now, for a fact that you cannot. If it comes to light that he used HGH after it was banned from the sport then I hope he suffers the appropriate penalty and I will change my mind. However, if anyone is jumping the gun at this moment and blowing this matter out of proportion it is you.

Not once in the article is it said that Ankiel broke a single MLB policy. Not one. Don't you think the writers of the piece would have mentioned that if they had a shred of proof that Ankiel was in violation of MLB rules? I do. Then again, that's just my assumption.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just because

slick rick stopped recieving hgh shipments in 2004 does not mean he stopped taking hgh. he could find a different dealer/company to get it from. remember, he could still be taking it because he knows there is no test for hgh currently. so this is a big story and could be a lot bigger if ank makes it/says anything vague/shady.

2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thorny

The paradoxical bit of analysis-paralysis here is that if Rick does come out and clear the air as LB suggests, a cynical person--or just a critical person--might think: well, sure. That's the cagey thing to do. That's the way to "stick it to the media" and make the story go away. That's just what one would want to do if one did have something to hide.

What I mean is, why would the charitable interpretation seem more plausible coming from Ankiel's own mouth? We all know that it's in his interest to spin this story as LB prescribes, so why wouldn't that story seem just as suspect?

Once we turn our attention from the facts of the case and their moral/legal implications to the question of how to best handle this from a PR standpoint, we very easily slip into this critical/cynical mindset: if his response seems canned, it's because he's hiding something. If his response seems candid, it's canned candor--he's received some good advice. And so on. There's no way out; no way of really knowing what's true and what's mere calculation.

I'm not exempting myself from this way of thinking, and I'm absolutely not rushing to judge Ankiel. I'm just saying that once we get into this discussion--the one about how to manage public perception--the bullshit can get very deep, very fast. I'm not sure how to cut through it without invoking potentially cheesy words like Trust and Faith. What a mess.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

those are fair points

if ankiel comes clean, some cynics will dismiss it as spin; some people still won't believe him. but that's still not a reason to remain silent, imho; at least he will have stood up for himself, and a lot of people who are on the fence (like me) will be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understood

and I think I'm in the same boat as you. But in 21st century America, it's hard to justify belief in why a statement to the press counts as really standing up for oneself. To keep the discussion baseball-related and relatively recent, R. Palmeiro certainly "stood up for himself" in the strongest possible terms...and that turned out poorly.

I'm with you, I really am. I'm not an especially cynical person; I think we're in cynical times.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but

Palmerio stood before Congress and said he never took them, then pissed hot.

No integrity, no ethics. He should be lambasted.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

but my point with Palmeiro is that cases like his (and there are plenty in and outside of sports) erode one's ability to put trust in anything public figures say when they're in a tight spot. When even lowly bloggers (and commenters) are hip to the workings of spin and public perception management, how can we put trust or credence in something uttered by a person with an entourage of handlers? Should we just "listen to our hearts"? Or guts? What does that even mean? (These are honest questions.)

I want to trust Ankiel. If he says what LB prescribes, I want to believe him. I'm just saying that as a critically functional 21st-century human, it's hard to do.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Understand and Agree.

And that, buddy, is a sad comment on where we are today.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If there's a way out

it might have to do with LB's original post: last line, second word.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hummingbird is right

Plenty of people will be skeptical, no matter what Rick does or says. Larry is also right, others will cut him some slack if he is straightforward about the whole matter. The "court of public opinion" can be brutal.

Also, Bernie made a good point in his blog entry on the subject. The fact that there is no reliable test for HGH allows the cheaters to continue to cheat if they wish, but the lack of testing also denies a clean player the chance to clear his name.

What a mess indeed.

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The best approach

When scandels occur, the worst case scenario is the drip drip drip of bad information. Since I'm involved in this for a living (communication), I am quite cynical on the get out ahead of it response. Nonetheless, if I was advising him I would say come clean with everything now -- ESPECIALLY if it's the best case scenario where he ended in 2005.

In fact, if I really wanted to paint a sympathetic picture of him, I would have him talk about other past drug use as he hit rock bottom when trying to rebuild his pitching career -- too much too soon. He stopped using other drugs, he stopped HGH, and used this new opportunity to change his life. Now THAT is a made for TV movie at the least.

Of course, if he is still using, well, all bets are off...

by jimstllax on Sep 7, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Medical Reason

I can definately see a medical reason for him to be taking HGH at the time. He had recently had elbow surgery and I can see a doctor prescribing it to aid in his recovery.

That being said I agree with the post that he MUST come out and talk about this. This story only becomes a monkey on his back if he hides behind a "no comment". It was before the ban on substances and from what I've heard he did not receive another prescription after the ban.

This does not change my perception of him or what he has accomplished one bit.

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Murdoch

larry, I at first also thought this paper was owned by news corp but that is actually the NY Post not the NY Daily News, this paper is actually owned by Mortimer Zuckerman

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks for pointing that out

correction made above ----

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another quick thing

Sorry to keep doing this Larry but the wikipedia article (which we know not to trust unless sourced) has a broken link for the pulitzer source but I did a search on the pulitzer website and it has 10 listed so the fact still stands but isn't wikipedia a bitch some times?

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel's not good with the media

He doesn't talk much to reporters. He's aloof. That's fine, and that's his right, but it doesn't exactly build up good will with the media about his credibility, when he's making a self-serving statement.

With that said, my view is similar to lboros' -- this happened more than two years ago, with a doctor's prescription. So what? It's a big stretch to use this story to claim that Ankiel's current success is attributable to drugs, especially since he's shown great promise as a hitter from high school onward.

BTW -- Rupert Murdoch doesn't own The Daily News. He owns the New York Post. Mort Zuckerman owns The Daily News.

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 9:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

One other point about Murdoch

The NY Post is NOT profitable. Murdoch himself says that. He keeps it as a money loser for influence reasons.

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Always a bridesmaid

I saw that comment yesterday from someone beat on a post. How is it that we seem to get so many posts about the same thing within seconds of each other? We both wrote the Murdoch thing at the same time pretty much.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I was embarrassed

I thought, geez, I just repeated something. But I only got beat by 10 seconds! Not bad unless you're running the hundred!

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he had a prescription for all shipments ...

... then the doctor who signed the prescriptions has some splain'in to do. The implication of the article is that there was not a clear lawful medical use for the level of drugs prescribed. Unless Rick did the Rush Limbaugh thing and used multiple doctors who each did not know what the other had prescribed, then I think the legal fallout from this lands on the doctor's head.

Issue: If what we are talking about is a doctor prescribing for Rick HGH that was not medically necessary nor advisable but Rick only used that which was prescribed and stopped when MLB banned the stuff, then I don't see how Rick has done something he get suspended for by MLB. Nor is he in legal peril. It's a PR hit and nothing more. Agree with LB that the best way to deal with a PR issue is head on immediately.

by jjray on Sep 7, 2007 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you start thinking like Johnnie Cochran

the shipments weren't sent to Rick's address, they were sent to the clinic. That fact right there points to all kinds of claims of deniability.

"If the address doesn't fit you must acquit"

Seriously though, I agree that Rick and the Cardinals organization need to get in front of this fast.

Release Kip Wells!

by Big Mike on Sep 7, 2007 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well..

Not sure what to think. Based on the facts stated right now, I am pretty comfortable with what happened and don't see any reason to be down on Ankiel.

As others have said, a strong public play to make sure everyone knows the story and understands the situation by Ankiel would be a smart move.

What concerns me the most is the firestorm of publicity this will create. How will Ankiel respond to the intense scrutiny? Will he struggle at the plate, something the Cards can ill-afford at this point in the season? We all know Ankiel has had trouble in the past dealing with such high-pressure situations.

by JMedwick on Sep 7, 2007 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree, Larry.

Especially with your recommendation for how Ankiel should handle this. It would be much better-received than "I'm not here to talk about the past."

by birdjam on Sep 7, 2007 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bunker

The statement recommend by lboros in the post would not satisfy critics but would be an effort to be upfront about it. Mostly, I think it would be a signal that he hasn't done anything illegal (or banned) since then. If he bunkers down, it's easy to interpret as: he's worried about what else may have transpired beyond the laws or MLB rules.

by awpierce on Sep 7, 2007 9:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Matthews, Jr.

Surely Rick's handlers are looking at what resulted from Matthews' situation. He issued a plain language denial and then clammed up (along w/ the Angels) and the story has gone away. How does that impact what happens here? 2004 was before the ban, so seems quite different, assuming he quit after that 2004 Rx. Why would fallout be worse for pre-ban use?

by awpierce on Sep 7, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Natural

The story of Rick Ankiel keeps getting more and more like "The Natural". After the success and leading his team back into the race he is the subject of a scandal to be exposed by the evil media. If someone had told me this was going to happen I would have thought they were nuts. But the parallels to the book/movie just keep coming.

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

interesting

You are so right, this is just one of the freakiest things I have seen in a long time.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to Google Earth

A shot to the light tower looks to be about a 600 foot homerun as calculated by how far it would go.

In other news, I'm looking up how far a hypothetical Rick Ankiel home run would go on Google Earth to test for parallels to The Natural at 9 in the morning. I think it's time for a girlfriend.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

will it end like the book or the movie?

The Cards at night, are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas

by texbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no kidding

Can we stop "the natural" references since in the book Hobbs takes the bribe and strikes out - a victim of greed.

by enoscountry on Sep 7, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WOW!

I never knew that was how the book ended. Hopefully Rick's real life story has a better ending.

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Book right now

The current line looks like the book.

The only thing missing is a young boy asking Rick if this is true and then the book ending (from how I gather the plot without actually reading it). Since this is real life then life will go on regardless.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Difference?

I didn't realize there was a different ending to the book and the movie. I've never read the book (I love the movie). Is it a good read? How is the ending different (don't worry about spoiling it for me I read the end of books first anyway)?

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Wikipedia

from reading the wikipedia article:

Book ends with Hobbs taking a bribe and striking out and having to face his fans beaten and broken down, movie ends with him triumphantly overcoming a bleeding stomach and everything turns out all right (hollywood loves happy endings authors prefer better literature)

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The

book is quite a bit better than the movie. In fact, its a bit of a travesty that they share the same title. BTW, I interpreted the ending to mean that he took the money, but tried to get a hit in that last AB, but whiffed again anyway...Its been awhile though.

by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 7, 2007 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you know what

i'm pretty sure he did it.

and you know what, i don't give a damn.

i feel this way because even if he did take it it was THREE YEARS AGO UNDER COMPLETLY LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES. this is just another classic example of the east coast media trying to undertake a star of the nl central. anyone with a brain should know that after the story "breaks" after ankiel hits two bombs and has 7 RBIs yesterday. would they write this if he was still in AAA, i think not.

by stlcardinalsfang on Sep 7, 2007 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You think

they wouldn't publish something about Clemens' past use if there was some evidence? Or is he exempt b/c he pitched for the 'stros for a while?

by awpierce on Sep 7, 2007 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry for the snark

but this is news and it comes out of NY b/c they've got more money to pay reporters to dig things up (among other reasons, of course).

by awpierce on Sep 7, 2007 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're right

and the only thing that sells better than a young phenom succumbing to tragedy, followed by an amazing comeback is a young phenom succumbing to tragedy, followed by an amazing comeback and then succumbing to tragedy

The Cards at night, are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas

by texbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if he really is on the juice

then it's not just sensationalism. then it's very relevant. it would suggest that "The Natural" isn't really so natural after all . . . . if (and i emphasize "if") ankiel pulled off this incredible pitcher-to-outfielder metamorphosis with the aid of chemical inputs, then it's a different story than if he did it based on natural ability.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I agree with your point lb but there is no denying the "natural" ability Rick possesses. I would like to hear from Rick that he stopped when the ban was put in place and that he had a legitimate medical reason for the use of the HGH.

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

legitimate use

The more I read about HGH the less likely I see Rick saying he has a legitimate use unless he has AIDs, he could have used it to heal from surgery but in that case, while a valid case to use it, it was still illegal to prescribe for that purpose and thus I think it loses legitimacy. This is going to be an interesting PR day in Phoenix.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

as far as I can gather, the only legitimate medical reason to prescribe HGH is to treat stunted growth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of it being used for anything else than that, or to help steroid users cope with the increased muscle mass.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

good article

This is a good article about HGH:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515665

"The FDA has approved GH only for GH deficiency-related syndromes causing short stature in children, adult GH deficiency caused by rare pituitary tumors and their treatment, and muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV and AIDS. Most GH prescriptions should therefore be for children, but 74% of human GH (HGH) prescriptions in 2004 were for adults aged 20 years and older, and 44% were for adults aged 40 to 59 years, suggesting to the authors that a large proportion of GH sales are for illegal uses."

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FDA Approval

Just because the certain use of a drug is not FDA approved does not mean that it is immoral or unethical for an individual to use the drug in the un-FDA approved fashion. My wife is a doctor and there are procedures that are not FDA approved that the physicians use. Usually all that means is an insurance company won't cover it. For instance, botox is injected into people's bladders to deal with incontinence, but that is not FDA approved. Just a point.

by bdub78 on Sep 7, 2007 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not in the case of HGH

For most things yes non FDA approved things are ok but with HGH non approved "off label" uses are illegal (via a federal law)

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drats

Point taken.

by bdub78 on Sep 7, 2007 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

That is true but as Bernie pointed out in his blog, Rick has been able to hit home runs and towering shots since he was 18. He also took the HGH starting while still a pitcher. There is a enough to condemn him in this but there is also enough questions about it as well that there might be a reasonable explanation.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clarification

HGH is neither the "juice" or the "clear," correct? Those are terms for steroids that are either injected with a needle or applied as a cream.

There are important differences between HGH and Steriods and it doesn't seem we're partitioning those right now. That is, HGH certainly help one recover from ailments and be healthy but aren't that much of a power booster. I still think HGH is bad for baseball but I don't think Ricks power numbers are a fluke.

That said, I think Bernie is right. There is no way this is getting figured out. Thankfully, Pujols remains a childlike hero for me, for now.

by enoscountry on Sep 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it's relevant but you seem

to be implying that the effects of HGH last for 3 years or more?

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

HGH promotes growth

not increased muscle mass. Humans don't ungrow. It is at least possible to believe that HGH has permanent effects in the human body.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, not to be picky

but of course we "ungrow." We get shorter (compressed spine, etc) and lose muscle mass as we get older.

Of course, he's in his prime, so my point may not be relevant.

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2007 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how do

we know he not still taking hgh? there is no test for it.

2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Coupla points

Just finished reading the article on ESPN.

Even if he did have a doctor's prescription and it was for rehab purposes, he's going to get hounded. And increased pressure could cause him to crack again? Think: Outfield, Wrigley Field.
There was an aside in the ESPN article about "eerie similarities" to McGwire. Completely different stories. I hope to god that this story doesn't bring up that skeleton in the closet of Cardinals fans again. McGwire is basically without balls - and not standing up for himself has caused most people to assume guilt. The shadow of McGwire is now bad for baseball.
Completely agree, Rick needs to face this head on. But the Cardinals aren't the most upfront organization.
If I were Rick, I'd never say "sorry." It wasn't cheating at the time of the incident in question, end of story.
I'd like to see his teammates, especially Rolen, and Carpenter come out in support - loudly. In a team that appears at time to be lifeless, this can band them together.
Tony and Walt should stand behind Rick in a press conference and say to the media in effect "this is our guy. We support him 100%, and this has no impact on his success" That may defray the cracking of Ankiel's psyche.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN WE CATCH A FREAKIN' BREAK THIS SEASON? WHAT'S NEXT, LOCUSTS?

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i believe raining frogs is next

The Cards at night, are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas

by texbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

Dogs and cats living together?

Mass hysteria!

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ghostbusters...

...nice! One of my favorite movie lines of all time!! D.GOOCH

by GOOCH24 on Sep 7, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Joke

All we need now is some sort of embezzlement story about the owners, and we'll have covered just about all aspects of the team.

by jimstllax on Sep 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh no

the (im)perfect way for this to all end is with a story about DeWitt the HGH pusher, signing downtrodden vets to "make good" contracts and then once on the team making back the contract money supplying the players with HGH so they can go make megabucks once they leave the Cards.

by JMedwick on Sep 7, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OUR PETS HEADS ARE FALLING OFF!

- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been joking

that someone in the front office must have made a Faustian bargain to get our World Series championship last year, and now the debt's coming due. Only the longer this season has gone one, the less it feels like a joke.

by nybirdgirl on Sep 7, 2007 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like most of you

I'm pretty torn today. We'll probably never know his motives if the story is true. 2003 was the season he missed with Tommy John correct? Wasn't he in camp and then in the minors in 04? If you were recovering would you still need HGH in 04? These things I don't know...

If the story is true then, and he did stop when they say. They it was before the implosion in spring training where he retired and then returned as an outfielder. If... then the feel good story is still a feel good story. It doesn't change things for me.

If...

by paCardsFan on Sep 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oops

They=Then

by paCardsFan on Sep 7, 2007 10:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's important to note

that there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that HGH adds 1 scintilla of strength to a player's body. In other words, there is absolutely no medical evidence whatsoever that HGH will make a player stronger or help a baseball player in any appreciable way. HGH is different from steroids -- they do add strength. HGH adds size, not strength. I get this from a Will Carroll article at Baseball Prospectus who has done exhaustive research on the matter. I don't have time now to find and link the article, but I will later (it may have been a chat).

This, of course, doesn't matter to Bud and the powers that be w/ MLB, but do not let anyone fool you into thinking that Ankiel's hitting homers b/c he took HGH 3 years ago. If it was 3 days ago, it's not why he's hitting homers. Players may think that it will help them, but studies indicate it doesn't...period!

by chuckb on Sep 7, 2007 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Honestly,

I think the dangerous implication here was that he was also taking one of the undetectable steriods--I have heard of people using HGH to add size to their body so that the body can cope with the increased muscle mass from using steroids without having their body break down--hence the increased hat and shoe sizes of Barry Bonds, for example.

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

does it matter if it helps him hit homeruns?

hgh is helping him indirectly. here is what i found surfing the net:
"HGH is an abbreviation for Human Growth Hormone that is produced by the pituitary gland in the brain. This hormone stimulates growth and cell production in human beings.The main property of HGH is to increase height, and the other important benefits are that it increases muscle mass, helps in calcium retention in our body, helps in keeping bones healthy, reduces fat in the body, helps in controlling sugar and insulin levels, helps with immunity and several more important functions that keep us healthy when we are young."

he was taking hgh before he sustained that injury in 2005 spring training. it helps him indirectly and taking hgh gives him an advantage over other ballplayers that dont take it, so it is cheating no matter how you look at it.

2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is cheating

if it violated MLB rules which, at the time, it didn't. But even conceding your point that the fat reduction and the calcium retention give him an advantage (or did...in 2004), it's important to keep HGH in perspective. People hear HGH and assume that people hit more homers b/c they're on HGH, etc. That isn't the case. It doesn't matter as far as MLB rules go (now) and doesn't matter to the powers that be b/c they're more interested in appearing to be doing something about cheating than really doing something about cheating, but it's important to keep HGH in perspective rather than giving into unfounded assumptions.

by chuckb on Sep 7, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

even if he did use HGH under shady

circumstances...this was in 2004...when he was a pitcher trying to comeback for the umpteenth time due to a long string of injuries. not condoning, but i can't throw a rock at him for doing something a little shady (but not illegal under mlb policy) at the time. i'd like him to say something, but i don't feel ankiel owes me as a fan anything. i can sympathize with why he would do something like that, and from the facts we have we can gather he's hit the 41 homers he's hit clean.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 7, 2007 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's what the rotoworld blurb says.

He was a pitcher trying to find himself at that time. Maybe willing to try drastic measures, as nothing normal had worked. Doesn't seem to detract from the story of redemption that seems to be the point of the whole Rick Ankiel thing. Just something else in his past pitching career that didn't go well, and not all that unexpected given his crazy stuggles.

by CardFaninVA on Sep 7, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet

Have we discussed steroids before? I can't remember. . .

As far as this never-ending saga goes, there's little to no point in trying to prove the legality from our limited set of facts. I find it mildly ironic that after people lambaste Bonds, they can perform the proper contortions to vindicate Ankiel (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone -- but we all know there's a Cardinal fan doing this somewhere). They can both do steroids and it isn't going to bother me a lick. It was a problem endemic to major league baseball and crucifying individuals for the sin of the system is pointless, imo. I like watching players be at the top of their game -- shoot them all up for as much as I care.

Enjoy what Ankiel is doing. HGH may provide some level of assistance but he's hit 40 or so HRs this year. That's talent, not some pill. I've never understood the Ankiel-mania; I never invested myself in his comeback story for whatever reason. But I understand that it's really inspiring to some people, and they shouldn't let this get in the way of that inspiration.

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 7, 2007 10:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bonds

I think plenty are doing what you describe, and really I have tried to make myself hate Bonds because of the steroids thing and I just can't. If I took steroids I still wouldn't hit 500 HRs much less hold the record. Do I think people should take them? No. But I do understand the temptation, and I especially understand the temptations that Ank might have been under in 2004 to get back as a pitcher and he might have tried anything he could have and this was his last ditch effot, or even his first effort out of many that we don't yet know of. Regardless there is no way he has hit 40 HRs this year without pure talent as well. I felt good about his return, I thought it was a great story, will make an even better movie (man this plot keeps getting better and better doesn't it?), but I don't feel that if he failed I would feel bad too.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you

I'm so sick of all the steroids/HGH conversation. I mean how long is this going to be the absolute number 1 topic of conversation? Canseco made his allegations - what? - 6 years ago? Since then, there has been cycles of ebb and flow of controversy concerning numerous individuals...with each new individual (last week Rodney Harrison...now Rick Ankiel) it's like we have to go through the exact same conversation again. It's neverending....

I'd much prefer we talk about the game of baseball. There's a lot to talk about with this cardinal team right now.

by cardsfaninmass on Sep 7, 2007 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but if thats

how its gonna go, then baseball will be like vince mcmahan's wwe; that is, just for entertainment, just a big soap opera that has already been decided. these days, you cant look at a ballplayer and not have doubts when he is doing really well in his sport.

2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Has baseball been damaged by

the rampant use of steroids? When you watch the game does it really feel scripted and choreographed like the WWE (I miss being a kid and watching the WCW). The idea that Baseball is going to go the way of wrestling because players are using PEDs strikes me as a little too outlandish. Certainly the debate will continue to rage over the sanctity of records and such but baseball doesn't have the theater-ish nature of wrestling.

I don't enjoy watching the game or analyzing stats any less than I did before the steroids mess.

Future Redbirds

by azruavatar on Sep 7, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to say nothing of the fact

that baseball players have been using PEDs for years and many are in the Hall of Fame, treated as some of the greatest players in history. You know why that is...b/c they are the greatest players in history. The story of "greenies" is often lost in the steroid and HGH hoopla but the fact that the greats of the 50's and 60's used PEDs didn't destroy the game, or cause it to go the way of professional wrestling, or ruin our experience/destroy our role models, etc.

by chuckb on Sep 7, 2007 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"crucifying individuals for the sin

of the system"

That's brilliant and sums up how I felt/feel.

If you think steroids don't help you hit home runs you're purposely being obtuse.

If you don't think people like Bonds, Sosa, Mac, etc were juicing, you're completely naive.

Just like pro-wrestling, body building, everything else, everybody was doing it, everybody knew, and nobody said a word. Through the blind eye they encouraged it. They probably even used quotation fingers when talking about it...sure it's "illegal" wink.

You know that San Fran was begging Bonds to juice up after 98. You know MLB knew but didn't care. It was accepted and expected back then.

Now, the Ankiel thing, it's even less of big deal because of things already stated. Not steroids and not banned by the mlb at the time of the offense. That would be like getting mad Walter Johnson for using a spit ball.

by rocKStark5 on Sep 7, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

I just don't care.

It doesn't really surprise me -- I still assume at least 50% of guys in MLB were using something -- and as long as he's not using now or when it went on the banned list, then I just don't really care.

I think I've been desensitized from this season.

Hello, playoff mosey

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2007 10:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I just couldn't care less. It wasn't cheating -- end of story. It wasn't illegal -- end of story. Why is there such a buzz? I just don't even get it.

by Ray Lankford on Sep 7, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keeping things in perspective

Bad: The media reporting that you took PEDs. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3008363)

Worse: The media reporting that you took PEDs to treat impotence. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/090707dnspowilson.2b0ac0a.html)

by birdjam on Sep 7, 2007 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I that case, screw the media

"I have diabetes. Blow me. I want to get my wife pregnant. So blow me again."

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2007 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that won't help the cause any...

if pregnancy's the aim.

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL!

Maybe Wilson took the drugs so he COULD screw the media.

by birdjam on Sep 7, 2007 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That suggestion

would be, um, counter-productive to getting someone pregnant.

by RedbirdRay on Sep 7, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

People pay attention!

Media involved in one activity, wife involved in the other!

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2007 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so

his wife is in the media?

Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not only that

but he was a COACH when he took these PEDs. I wonder if taking HGH enhanced his performance as a coach? The steroid/HGH/PED stuff has been taken to absurd proportions, thanks largely to Congress pretending to care about it.

by chuckb on Sep 7, 2007 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

elbow surgery

Assuming the story is true, it seems to me very likely there is a connection to his recovery from elbow surgery. It's not like Ankiel needed HGH to put some more giddy-up in his fastball at that point in his career.

Good, balanced perspective as usual, Larry. Like you, I'll reserve judgment. If he took HGH during 2004, and only 2004, as a desperate attempt to get his career back on track, I won't judge him too harshly.

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 10:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

HGH

This news doesn't really bother me for a few reasons:

By the rules of the game, he didn't do anything wrong. HGH wasn't banned when he took it, and according to the SI report I read, he stopped receiving shipments of HGH shortly before the ban. If you think this is a cookie-cutter defense, like how people defend players from the '90s by saying that steroid use wasn't banned by the MLB in the '90s, then how about this,
There is no proof that HGH enhances performance and there is some proof that it doesn't. This might seem like I'm trying to prove a negative, but here: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/124/8/708?ijkey=4d4f3cb946f5eb5a6021d2bea4ac47cadb30310c

The one flaw in this study, if you can call it that, is that it is of the elderly, and the only extensive research to this point (as far as I know) on HGH and its effects are on the elderly and intensive care patients.

This leaves

3) Ankiel thought that the HGH would enhance his performance when it would do no such thing. Some people would argue that even if HGH does not help one cheat, the intent to cheat is still there. So what? Are the thought police gonna throw Ankiel in the clink?

Unfortunately, many people and many Cards fans are going to accuse Ankiel of all kinds of Bondsian things, and I think that reflects how poorly educated we all are on the nuances of HGH, etc. I don't even want to imagine what Cubs fans will use as catcalls, but I'm sure it will equal the homophobic things they scream at Jimmy Edmonds.

I'm still pulling for Rick Ankiel, and given how early we are in the process, I hope most everyone else here is, too.

by joepo on Sep 7, 2007 10:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Did anyone else hear the reporter...

.. on KSDK this morning that said up to 14 other players may be named as receieving HGH from this same source around the same time? So why is it Rick's name they want to drag through the mud to bust this story open with. Unless the KSDK reporter is just flat out lying, has bad info, or all the other players to be named are career minor leaguers, something fishy is going on.

"The two most important things in life: good friends and a strong bullpen." - Bob Gibson

by birds 4 life on Sep 7, 2007 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great, levelheaded post today

by Will Leitch over at Deadspin.

Hello, playoff mosey

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2007 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As usual

Will nails it.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will's take was excellent

But Larry's is better.

by birdjam on Sep 7, 2007 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They're both great

yes. Larry took the more straightforward approach, while Will ties it up with the whole legend of Rick.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the slate story

that Will links to is worth a read. Makes the case that HGH is much more benign -- and has much less impact on performance -- than steroids.

http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But what' sad is that Ankiel

never wanted to be presented as "the guy in the white hat" that saves the day. The media wanted that story; the fans wanted that story; many on this site described Rick as a the perfect "redemption story". And Ankiel did everything possible--including refusing to talk to the media--to keep that story from getting out of control.

And now we look at what we made of Ankiel and say that he has somehow sullied the innocence we longed for--he brought down the hero image we yearned for, he's not the symbolic redemed that we thought he was.

Well we shouldn't have put him up in that position in the first place. He didn't want us to. And I think he knew the dangers of such inflated expectations. We as fans, and the media, put him someplace he didn't want to go; and now we feel entitled to complain about a "loss of innocence" and the "fading of the fairy tale" and the fact that there are no more "heroes".

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Me.

I didn't put him on a pedestal. I don't know a single person who has. The article in the NYDN has done nothing to sully the good will Rick Ankiel has brought myself and Cardinals Nation this season. Ankiel hasn't done wrong regarding HGH, to this point, so why the rush to sully his name after a sensational article appears in a trash rag back east?

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree about not sullying his name

...however, it sounds like the media and also some fans are freely sullying it.

I do think people should examine the sadder personal side of this for Rick. Other people wanted the fairy tale story, the come back kid story, the redemption story because it made them feel good about the world, about possibilities, about sports, or whatever.

Ankiel wanted to be left in peace so that he could develop his talents without a media circus. He refused to talk to the media. He asked them not to write those stories. He told them he didn't trust them in what they would do with those stories. And he was right.

With the evidence we have, I wonder if some people are primarily thinking about themselves--about their own disappointments, their own suspicions, their own moral judgments. I think we should be focusing more of our attention on Ankiel's welfare.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is easy...

Bernie showed he had the power coming out of high school. Rick took the HGH when it was legal. He needed it to recover from surgery. The article itself said he stopped before it was legal. I do object to the picture for the article as it does infer that he is a cheater which as I said above he did not cheat. Lets get over this.

The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Sep 7, 2007 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

elsewhere, in feel good land

colby hit a walk off homer in last night's playoff game against tulsa to give the s-cards a 2-0 advantage.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 7, 2007 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

And QC lost a heartbreaker

After losing 4-0 for most of the game QC tied it then lost in 11 when Maquies (their closer) gave up a run. Great box scores though, Spr should have won without Colby but they lost a lead and thus it set up a 2 out bottom of the 9th solo shot from Colby.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm feeling torn

I like that our farm teams are doing well, but this AA series has me a little conflicted, since I grew up in Tulsa (most of the baseball games I attended as a child were Driller games). But Colby's continued progress is certainly a bright spot.

by nybirdgirl on Sep 7, 2007 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing I find difficult

is that Rick had to know that this story would come out.

Assuming it's true, it seems as though he should've discussed this with Cardinals management (Jocketty, LaRussa, DeWitt) when (if not before) he was called up and explained why he was taking it, again assuming it was for a medical reason.

The fact that Jocketty seems taken aback by this, doesn't leave me with a good feeling, if for no other reason than the Cardinals never gave up on Rick and continued to resuscitate and nuture his career.

I hope that Rick, his management team, and the Cardinals will explain this soon.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I have a different take entirely. This was 3 years ago, wasn't illegal, and wasn't banned. Do you really expect Rick Ankiel to call Bill DeWitt and say, "Gee thanks for the call up, but I have to tell you something that happened 3 years ago." I guess it just seems like an easy thing to say now, but I think Rick probably either forgot about it or thought the same thing I do: its just not a big deal at all. (assuming the reported story is as deep as it goes)

Also, what would you expect Jocketty to say? "Oh, yeah, we actually knew about this a long time ago but we decided to call up Rick anyway in the hopes that no one would find out. In fact, we are surprised it took you so long for the media to pick this up." Even if he told Jocketty and DeWitt, they wouldn't say that it was something they had been concealing.

I'm just sick of over reactions to things like this. Am I worried about Rick's bad press? Sure. Is the bad press warranted? Prob. not, which is why I don't like all of the "sky is falling" reactions.

by Ray Lankford on Sep 7, 2007 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't expect

Jocketty, et al, to say anything publicly until a story broke, no...

But minor or not, and apparently opinions vary, it puts the organization in a bad light, as well as Rick.

The Cardinals were clearly unprepared for a situation such as this. Now we'll see how they react.

I don't know who's over-reacting...I certainly didn't feel like I did or have. Just wondering how the organization could've been caught unaware. I don't think it's over-reacting to wonder about something like that.

And, bad press warranted or not, it is what it is. The general public will think he cheated, whether or not it has anything to do with him hitting home runs 3 years after he allegedly took HGH. That's the 24-hour news-cycle society we live in.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is what they're saying at Bleed Cubbie Blue

<http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/story/2007/9/7/12233/08422>

Obviously, they have forgotten that Sammy Sosa was a Cub.

F'ing jerkoffs.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is what they're saying at Bleed Cubbie Blue

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/story/2007/9/7/12233/08422

Obviously, they have forgotten that Sammy Sosa was a Cub.

F'ing jerkoffs.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What about Derrek Lee's complete drop off...

in power this year? Sounds like someone coming off the juice to me.

- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

HGH

I wouldn't talk bad about an opposing player using HGH, simply because it's almost guaranteed to come back and bite you.

I expect that at some point in the near future, a lot more names are going to be listed....and I'm sure that Cubs players and Cards players will be among them.

by Fitz on Sep 7, 2007 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually

if you read through the bleedcubbieblue thread, it pretty mixed -- some jerkoffs, plenty of voices of reason (including head blogger Al)

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excerpt from BCB

I thought this was pretty well said:

Who knows...
... what will come of the current investigations and if we'll ever see the results, but folks, lets not kid ourselves in thinking that Ankiel is a rarity. We may laugh at him, but in all likelyhood, many of the players we root for may currently use or may have used in the past HGH and other illegal substances. So Cub fans can insinuate about Ankiel, but who knows why several Cub pitchers went down the toilet after MLB went after steroids. Or perhaps there is a reason why several Cub players are seeing their home run totals fall as their long drives fall short of the wall.

I want MLB to go after everyone and anyone who used and/or uses, but we need to be prepared to see some of our own fall.

DmL

by dmlichte on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM CT

Dont give up boys!

by yer dog first on Sep 7, 2007 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Take

Well...This is kind of a downer. The Daily News is a respected source as far as I can tell, not some paper that's into publishing big bold bubbling crap. Is it possible that they goofed this one, or overstated stuff, sure. Did they? I really don't know, b/c I haven't seen the documents or talked to their sources. As a person with a history background, a thesis is only as good as its evidence, and I can't see the evidence in this case. As of right now, I'd prefer to hear from Ankiel himself and see what the horse's mouth has to say, even if its to say that this report is a complete load of crap and doesn't deserve to see the light of day.

Of course, no matter what Rick does at this point, he's screwed in the court of public opinion. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He can come out and be honest, and then people will be pissed that he cheated. He can come out and say he didn't, and he's a liar. Once something is published, it pretty much becomes gospel in the public eye (in psychology they call it the primacy effect, the first or last things you hear generally get remembered more, and of the two the first is most powerful generally). It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few days, weeks, or whatever.

by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 7, 2007 10:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

its

sensationalism pure and simple to publish this story. it would be a valid and important story if they found steroids on him now or a current prescription for hgh. I could even see a reporter using it as a starting point to try to find current information linking him to steroids NOW but to publish information linking him to hgh when it was still MLB legal is just a way to capitalize on the combined buzz of what Ankiel is doing now and the Bonds fueled anti-steroid wave. Its a way to make people think what he is doing now is aided by illegal substances without proving anything. Its crap.

I admit to no objectivity on this but for crying out loud, unless you have something on him that proves he's breaking the rules now or even then, let the poor kid have his day in the sun. he friggin deserves it.

by satori21 on Sep 7, 2007 10:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm not assuming that you didn't

but if you read the article itself, not the sensationalistic cover, there is little in the way of accusation, simply the paper trail of hgh to rick.

by sdesserman on Sep 7, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is evidence in how they wrote the story

they did not come out in the beginning and say that he had a legal prescription at a time when it was not banned or that it could have been taken at a time when he was recovering from injury. The first paragraph talks about his current surge and the Cardinal's recent rise, and it is in this context that they bring up his possible use of hgh.

They bury the more "sympathetic" information that gives context to the possible usage in the middle of the story.

MLB did the opposite. And those are deliberate choices writers make and they are making them for a reason. The first way of doing it is a more sensationalist story, especially given his recent surge in HR and RBI's.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

"St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Rick Ankiel, baseball's feel-good story of the season, received a 12-month supply of human growth hormone in 2004 from a Florida pharmacy that was part of a national illegal prescription drug-distribution operation, the Daily News has learned."

seems pretty straightforward to me.

by sdesserman on Sep 7, 2007 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lame complaints

It's wearisome to read lame excuses like, "Well, this or that fact is in the middle of the story, instead of at the top." It's a newspaper story. It's about 800 words long. Reading it takes less than two minutes. It's not like you're being assigned to read the World Book. So what if something is in the middle of a story?

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

People are also ignoring the fact that Rick

didn't get this from 'his' doctor but 'a' doctor who works for THRAC.

The liklihood that this is all on the up and up is very slim. We can always hope for slim but in reality we will all see what we want to see.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 10:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and it appears...

you desperately want to see the worst in all of this, judging from your comments.

- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want reality

not coulda or maybes. People are so quick to bury Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, etc but when it comes time to look critically at our own players it is all about 'media bias' or people with agendas.

Mark McGwire was one of the greatest power hitters of all-time. He did remarkable things for the Cardinals, restored order to a franchise that was pretty terrible. He got guys like Edmonds (and subsequently Rolen) to sign hometown discounts to ensure high level of play in this town. The statues out front of the stadium, the miniture ones, they created one for McGwire. Yet where does it sit? In a warehouse in somepart of the town, far away from the ballpark. You mention the name McGwire and Cardinals fans just duck their heads.

Yet, here we are faced with another instance of a guy we cheered so hard for using a substance he had no business taking and we are once again quick to rally around him.

I'm going to continue to cheer for Ankiel, I'm going to continue to hope for his success whether he is on our team or leaves in 2 years. But after 15 years of having the best players be 'tainted' with disappointing revelation after revelation, I'm not going to assume that this isn't just another case.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Mac

I think the statue of Mac should be on display but I agree with you it is interesting seeing the blind defense some are giving him. I think there could be reasons but for now we don't have em, take a wait and see and not condemn him right away is how I am going with it right now.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said, Hardcore

We all want to know what is going on, what the actual truth is. We are just burying a guy, but don't get all defensive when we believe a published news story and take it at face value.

Let me get this straight...Rowand over Pujols??? Really, Tony?

by cardzfan24 on Sep 7, 2007 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Belief

Name one thing in that story that says Ankiel either violated a federal law and/or violated an existing MLB policy.

Just one...

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

I just don't see why people are getting all amped up about this. I really don't.

by Ray Lankford on Sep 7, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want reality then

stay with the current facts and don't let your mind stray into speculating about things that are unknown. It sounds like what you want is to know the future right now and that's not possible.

Trying to grasp the future before we have any solid evidence for what that might be is not "reality". I understand the sentiment. But I don't think it's fair to Ankiel. And it does risk perpetuating a feeding frenzy.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

110 comments

And it isn't even 10 AM CDT time yet. Wow this post is pretty popular.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How to handle the story

I agree Rick should make a statement of the facts . I'm not sure he should expose himself to media members who are in a feeding frenzy over a story that has been presented in a sensationalist way with big splashy headlines (for those who don't think it's sensationalist, just look at the flashy page and read again first paragraph--the only thing many will read).

Ankiel been assualted by the media before and was traumatized by that. He can get the facts out in other ways.

And Ankiel doesn't trust the media--he said that outright to a P-D reporter who was trying to write a feel-good story about him. He said in a totally honest way "I don't trust you guys" and "I don't want to be the story". He never asked for those "come back kid" labels to be attached to him and tried to slow them down. I think he was suspicious of what the media would do--build him up and then tear him down.

I'm most concerned about Ankiel's psychological stability. As long as there is no use after the ban, I'd like him to state the facts clearly (and a written statement is fine with me) and get on with his life.

I'm glad he has great teammates to help him, like Edmonds. I'm also glad he has TLR. He's fiercely supportive of his players and will protect him from any sensationalist snooping. I know some won't like that. But I'm glad Tony protects his players when the media goes into a feeding frenzy.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

TLR? He turns positively

Nixonian in situations like this. I don't think Tony's paranoid style is really what we should want for handling this story.

"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 7, 2007 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think TLR should handle the story

Ankiel should put out a truthful statement and say he is completely open to speaking to investigators. His statement should be clear and leave no room for ambiguities. He should then have his agent field questions so he can get on with his life. The Cardinals organization should put out a statement about what they knew, and if there is no illegal use, they should say they stand behind Rick's statement and Rick as a person.

What Tony will give Ankiel is unwavering support. Tony sees the media as Rick does and so Rick will have someone backing him who has experienced the media in the same way. And Tony has a fighting spirit and a LOT of grit--that can help Rick deal with this whirlwind and go out and play hard on the field. Tony's duty is to manage Rick and to look out for his welfare. Tony's had a lot of practice with rallying the team in the face of adversity.

Not many people seem sufficiently concerned about Ankiel's welfare here. Since we don't have evidence that he did anything illega, I would think we should be most concerned about him. If other evidence comes out that indicates illegal use, we have plenty of time to condemn him.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I just thought it was...

his bat, "Wonder Boy."

by templetown on Sep 7, 2007 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So many users

This is just a fantasy but I wish MLB would come clean and admit that hundreds of players used PEDs and that everybody knew about it along. Then we could all just move forward. The Ankiel story is a great story whether he used them or not and I'm going to enjoy it.

Lee

Lee Panas

by tiger337 on Sep 7, 2007 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Did Walt speak to soon?

His comments kind of surprise me. Because they virtually admit this is terrible IF it is true. They nullifies the grey area we've all been discussing, i.e. well it really wasn't illegal THEN....MAYBE he stopped BEFORE it became illegal.

by cardsfaninmass on Sep 7, 2007 11:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It is tragic...

From a team stand point it is tragic, it is another blow, another "drug" problem this year. This team has taken so many damn blows to the gut this year yet still keeps kicking it is tragic that they have to take another kick. Basically this team was flat on its back at the ASB, they stood up after the Brewers series then got pulled back down while losing 1-5 on the road and having a teammate admit a drug issue. Then they start to rise again (coinciding with Ank asserting himself) and slowly start to get back up then WHAM! they lose Rolen and Juan in 2 days, then they get back up with Mulder coming back, then get a so so outing from Maroth followed by great offense to pick them up again then: gut check and they are taking another kick back down again, I think that is what Walt meant about tragic, just that this is the last thing this team needed right now.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

IF it is true then it is terrible for Ankiel and the Cardinals. IF, it is true that Ankiel was using HGH after the ban in 2005.

If Ankiel hasn't been using HGH since 2005, and there's been no evidence so far that he has, then this is such a non issue it's laughable.

If Ankiel hasn't used HGH since the 2005 MLB ban then he should challenge those NYDN writers to provide evidence that he has. He should do so on camera in front of the world. The burden of proof is on those making the accusations.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"tragic"

really wasn't the right word, for two reasons. First, it suggests the Ankiel controversy is comparable to Hancock's death or Enc's eye injury. And, second, as of now, the only allegation is that Ankiel used HGH in 2004, when it wasn't banned and when he was trying to recover from elbow surgery. You can call that a "mistake," you can call that "disappointing," but I don't see how you can possibly call it "tragic."

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, with the info we know

"tragedy" was a completely inappropriate word. And I think there's a risk that it will give Rick a sense that the organization failed to back him when they had no evidence that he had done anything illegal. I'm certain TLR is backing him, but TLR is not the organization.

If this blows over, that may be remembered by Ankiel as an act of disloyalty and he may be less inclined to stay with the Cards in the future, even though they gave him his chance to come back. The Cards have to be careful how to handle this. If there is nothing more to the story, they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to look all high and mighty on the issue.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

100%. Actually, I couldn't agree more.

by Ray Lankford on Sep 7, 2007 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually, it's a more appropriate use of 'tragic'

a tragedy is not some horrible thing that happens. It is when a hero's rise, strengths and goals are ultimately tied up with his/her downfall

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whether it is rhetorically correct or not,

it gives a message to Ankiel and to the media that the Card's organization is not backing him or at least that they are wavering. I think it was a bad message to send based on what they knew. And I bet TLR is fuming about it.

If they are interested in Ankiel's psychological stability, they shouldn't be labeling him as a "tragic" figure. That is what he has been trying to get away from for all these years. And now it's the Card's organization itself that has reintroduced a label that Ankiel has long dreaded.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one last point

Who made him the "hero"? Who put him up so high that he could then make a "tragic" fall? He did everything possible to keep that from happening. That is the ironic tragedy.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you want to, replace 'hero' with 'protagonist'

or 'figure'

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't trying to be snarky

I just want people to think about this from Ankiel's perspective a little more. It is very tragic (if you will) that he is going through another version of the same media circus, which keeps labeling him as phenom star and then a fallen hero. And it was that whole episode he was trying to escape from as he worked so hard to come back.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but if that was his point

Walt was jumping ahead -- and commenting on a downfall that hasn't yet occurred. Seems much more likely that he was commenting on the allegations and how serious he viewed them to be, if true.

The quote also suggests the team has suffered other ``tragedies'' this year. The things that happened to Hancock and Encarnacion don't fit your definition but they do square with the more common use of "tragedy" as a disastrous event.

I understand what you're saying in a Shakespearean sense, but I don't think that was Jocketty's point.

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

time to think here and now

does ankiel start tonight?

does ankiel struggle?

does he get the whole weekend off?

does he not start until he talks?

by stlcardinalsfang on Sep 7, 2007 11:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

does he get booed?

- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my prediction

standing O

by stlcardinalsfang on Sep 7, 2007 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In Arizona?

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my bad.

by stlcardinalsfang on Sep 7, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well actually

there are usually a pretty good contingent of Redbird fans at the BOB, or whatever it's called now.

I considered going to these games, but being busy with work, decided not to.

Call up Jarrett Hoffpauir!

by player2bnamedl8r on Sep 7, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

knowing TLR

he is going to resist the media circus; emphasize the here and now of the pennant race; and then get angry and start accusing the media of 'agendas' and 'starting trouble'...

In any case, I would think in his resistance he will continue to play Ankiel as much as he has over the last few weeks.

by cardsfaninmass on Sep 7, 2007 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would assume

that Ankiel will start at least 2 games this weekend and will sit Monday in Chicago. No reason to start him in Wrigley unless this clears up before then. Dunc, Edmonds and Ludwick can handle Monday and give him a break.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming that the team

has circled around him in support. They've faced a lot of adversity this year and I'm sure that has done something in uniting them and helping them to fight on against adversity.

I also can imagine that this has made the team mad--I think a lot of players hold a similar view of the media as TLR. And if you've ever noticed Wainwright pitch when he's mad, it seems like it makes him that much tougher. He watched his face closely once when he kept getting terrible calls, and it just seemed to harden his face and harden his resolve.

I hope the whole team focuses their energy into hitting the ball that much harder and pitching that much stronger. That in itself would be a great statment of support of Ankiel.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

By all accounts the team loves Ankiel. This could provide the boot they need to finish September strongly.

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Truth

My head is buried deep in the sand on this one. If Ank just tells the truth - I am with him either way. Somehow over the last 5+ years Ank has become family to me. Right or wrong I am with him on this...

-K

by Lawless on Sep 7, 2007 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Of Course

That is clouded by the fact that "legally" he might not be able to tell the truth, so then in comes down to the same McGwire allegiances we have now. I am one of the few and often bashed McGwire supporters as well. Not that I think he didn't do it, but when you are family with me, then no matter what you do from then on, you remain --- family. Irrevocable.

by Lawless on Sep 7, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question.

So if it comes to light that McGwire used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs with 100% certainty then you'll still defend his innocence?

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not my point

I won't defend his innocent, that would be crazy. For the record, I don't think he is innocent now. The blind truth is that if it was 100% proven and/or he admitted it, I would still be a McGwire fan/supporter, etc. etc. It would take M Vick actions for me to leave a guy's camp that I am as firmly staked in as McGwire or Ank...

by Lawless on Sep 7, 2007 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They couldn't wait til the end

of the pennant race to destroy him.

And Rick has been reluctant to be the object of this great story, perhaps in part because he knew what past might come to surface.

And if all was legal, and part of rehab, then why would management get quoted first with a line like "If I'ts true..."

I appreciate the level headed articles from lb, bernie, and leitch. But for Rick, the pressure won't quit. If the next chapter has him defeating the journalists and winning public opinion, I'll be more shocked that watching last nights on field performance.

But one last thing; if they were really serious about the drug issues, they would ban the use of steroids and hormones that end up in all the hot dogs served to our kids at the ballpark! But then, that isn't what this is about.

Play Roy Hobbs Everyday!

by Birds on the Bat on Sep 7, 2007 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Somehow this new adversity

seems to fit right in with the theme of the season. Like a good book or one of those summertime action blockbuster movies, we are both outraged and entertained, depending on which uniform our guy wears. One thing for sure, we're getting our money's worth out of this season, whether we like it or not.

If the Cardinal brass, Ankiel and Boras stood up and answered the bell via an honest and open press conference it would surprise us all. Most likely we'll see their collective shrugs followed by the "it is what it is" press release.

Nuthin'....I got nuthin'over here.

by Handsome Jimmy on Sep 7, 2007 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Most likely

Getting easy information (injuries, pitching rotation) can be tough to get out of this organization. I can't imagine what they'll do with this, besides try to ignore it.

C70 at the Bat

by Cardinal70 on Sep 7, 2007 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buzz kill is right

I was in our company workout room this morning and a Pirates fan was giving me some business about derailing the Cards in the just-concluded series. I said, a .500 team splits a four-game series, how is that going off the rails?

Anyway, I said, Ankiel is the feel-good story out of St. Louis this year. He concurred.

Five minutes later, he yells at me, He's taking HGH! I laughed. He says, Seriously, it's on ESPN!

Good gawd. Following sports can really put you through the wringer. It cuts both ways. We had the miracle World Series last year. So I'm not whining. But what a boomerang this is.

by Youneverknow on Sep 7, 2007 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's very much a case of these days

having to look around and say "is it ok to cheer now?"

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

very well said hardcore legend. it should not be that way tho, MLB and bud selig aren't delivering us a clean product and i dont udnerstand that. id like to punch mr selig in the face, repeatedly, until he stops twitching.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another good article on HGH

Found another good HGH article this one from April of this year.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neit her-should-you

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

there seem

to be conflicting views out there as to how severe the side effects can be. (This article suggests they are significant, while the Slate article says they are inconsequential.)

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

HGH

But both articles call into serious question that they would benefit a baseball player, the Slate piece (a cool-headed, reputable source if ever there was one) especially.

Even on this forum, I keep seeing the word "cheating" thrown around. HGH wasn't cheating then, per the rules, and by the gist of these articles I'm not sure it would even be cheating now, in the sense that it would boost performance.

It's frustrating and a real shame that this - the reputation of a great ballplayer - is essentially going to come down to how much people choose to inform themselves.

by naterz on Sep 7, 2007 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rick's stats

Thought I'd throw this out there:

Before this season, Rick Ankiel had 32 HRs in 451 minor league at-bats. This season in the PCL, he had 32 HRs in 389 ABs. Before this year, he had a HR in every 14 at-bats. This year, he had a HR in every 12 at-bats.

Which again, makes his use of this stuff all the more frustrating.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i don't think that proves much

if anything, especially if doctor after doctor says hgh does little to anything.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 7, 2007 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reread the post erik

HL actually "proves" that rick has been hitting home runs at this pace before the hgh scandal even occured, and thus why it is even worse if he did take them since he obviously didn't need them.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my bad

Future Redbirds

by erik on Sep 7, 2007 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sigh

altho im sure there will be more to come out, as it stands now, im gutted by this news about rick ankiel.

you invest such emotion into these players and teams, and stuff like this happens.

MLB cant guarantee these players are clean because they dont blood test, so i am about to give up on the sport. it is a joke. bud selig is a douchebag of the highest order. get rid of him, and start over with a commissioner who has some balls to stand up to the players union and protect us, the fans, from this bullshit happening anymore.

steroids werent even banned by baseball until 2005, that is ludicrous. unacceptable. fuck major league baseball.

we need baseball cleaned up now, for good, or just inject them during the anthem before the game. as it stands now it is ridiculous.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Umm, there is no test for HGH anywhere

by bailorg on Sep 7, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

they can test blood for it from what i understand, but the players union wont allow it.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

p.s.

the international olympic committee has claimed they have a test for HGH since 2004.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And their "test" is total BS

"Major League Baseball doesn't test for HGH. The International Olympic Committee brags it has had an HGH test since before the 2004 Olympics, but that is semantics.

Yes, there is a blood test for HGH. But because antibodies necessary for the process are in such short supply, virtually no HGH testing is conducted. In addition, the test only detects HGH right after injection so it's impractical for in-competition testing. As a result, there never has been an HGH positive."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/2006-06-09-hgh-testing_x.htm

by bailorg on Sep 7, 2007 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

umm ok

so you are saying we shouldnt worry about this at all then? just keep going as is?

you sound like a player

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

facts

he just presented you with facts, no point in attacking him for that.

by gdowdy3 on Sep 7, 2007 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what facts?

that hgh testing is BS? that is a fact?

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ha

copy and paste from google..nice facts.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok,

if that is not true, then please let us know what the facts are.

by gdowdy3 on Sep 7, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With this team's

track record of using the "Cone of Silence" when controversy arises, I'm sure of two things: TLR will deflect every accusation thrown at Ankiel, throwing it back at the media; and this will affect how much more he plays the rest of the way, because of La Russa's over-protective nature when it comes to Rick.

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2007 12:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Judging by the reactions

on here and elsewhere, it looks like the media got what they wanted. Which is to tear down the image of a new hero of those "simple middle America folks".

I'm sorry but this whole thing to me still reeks of having an ax to grind by somebody or a collected group of people looking to prove something to either the Cardinals origanization and/or their pasionate fans.
I may be wrong... it might just be reporters doing their job but it's my gut feeling on this right now.

But I do agree that the Cardinals origanization needs to try and clear this up ASAP (if possible), before this "sucker punch" turns into a knockout blow.

by KYCards on Sep 7, 2007 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ok, so no reliable HGH test then?

but if the players wont allow blood tests at all, there never will be. i thought they could detect it. if they cant reliably, then their priority needs to be to find a way to test for it.

by Rentboy on Sep 7, 2007 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The key

line for me, at least in this PD article, is "Ankiel, 28, has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing." Not accused of wrongdoing. Hmmm. If his actions in this "issue" aren't worth accusing him of doing something wrong, then what exactly is the "issue"?

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/0FA56E7DC6723A908625734F00400BE9 ?OpenDocument

by rockin redbird on Sep 7, 2007 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

If his actions in this "issue" aren't worth accusing him of doing something wrong, then what exactly is the "issue"?

That's the point I've been making all morning...

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good lord, what's the issue?

HGH and steroid use by baseball players. That's what the issue is.

by sdrone on Sep 7, 2007 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong Premise.

HGH wasn't an illegal substance when he took it. I don't see the problem...

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The "issue", RR

is that his name has now been linked to a banned substance; charges or no charges. With all that's been going on with the BALCO investigation, the George Mitchell "investigation", and the Rodney Harrison/Wade Wilson suspensions, it's going to continue to be an issue, too.

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2007 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well--

As to my knowledge, the substance in question was NOT banned when he used it, and he quit taking it when it was banned. If there is evidence he continued taking it after the ban, let's have it. If not, the reason there are no charges is that there is nothing to charge. This makes it a "non-issue" in my book whether you're talking Ankiel, Bonds, McGwire, or Sosa. Did they do something wrong or not? If so, charge them. If not, drop it. Should those who made liquor in 1918, before the Volstead Act was made law in 1919, have been arrested for it or had their reputations ruined a year later? The America I live in says NO. As my Grandpa used to say, S*** or get off the pot." Ankiel either did something wrong or he didn't. So far, the facts--and the non-action of "authorities"--say he didn't. If the evidence changes, then I'm all for punishing him in whatever manner is deemed appropriate. Otherwise, I see this as yet another media frenzy over nothing.

by rockin redbird on Sep 7, 2007 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question...

The question here is does ex post facto apply in the Court of Public Opinion, Apparently, after reading the dearth of logic on a few websites, it does - which is unfortunate.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

my take

i agree he should come clean asap however on baseball tonight last night they said that mlb has the power to suspend any player who took hgh for 50 games. obviously it is impossible to prove if they took hgh unless they admit it. if ankiel comes out in the clubhouse and says yes i took hgh it was prescribed by a doctor for my injury and it was before it was banned from mlb, what is stopping mlb from suspending him for 50 games?

by truemun12 on Sep 7, 2007 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

2004

If he only admits he did it in 2004, it was not illegal at the time, therefore mlb can not suspend him for it.

by gdowdy3 on Sep 7, 2007 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Login Bar

Network Bar

An unofficial St. Louis Cardinals blog

Comments