WTF is up with A-Rod?

[ElvisL1ves]

All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal or fattening."

• Alexander Woolcott

[Munch]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

This has consistently been my point since my first post on the subject (#109). I’m not forcing you to argue it.I don’t know what you’re referring to, but if they’re not illegal or harmful then they’re presumably not related to the steroids issue. Perhaps you can clarify.

For instance, HGH can be prescribed by a doctor - yet it’s on the banned substance list. As far as I’m aware, it’s not harmful.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Munch

For instance, HGH can be prescribed by a doctor - yet it’s on the banned substance list. As far as I’m aware, it’s not harmful.

There are a lot of drugs that fit that category - illegal without a prescription. This doesn’t mean that they’re safe, the reason you need a prescription is because they have or may have harmful side effects but which are worth incurring in certain situations, or because they can be harmful if used incorrectly. In the specific case of of HGH:

Use of GH as a drug has been approved by the FDA for several indications. This means that the drug has acceptable safety in light of its benefits when used in the approved way. Like every drug, there are several side effects caused by GH, some common, some rare. Injection-site reaction is common. More rarely, patients can experience joint swelling, joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and an increased risk of diabetes.[36] In some cases, the patient can produce an immune response against GH. GH may also be a risk factor for Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[40]

One survey of adults that had been treated with replacement cadaver GH (which has not been used anywhere in the world since 1985) during childhood showed a mildly increased incidence of colon cancer and prostate cancer, but linkage with the GH treatment was not established.

What’s your opinion? Why would baseball ban it - and why would it require a prescription - if there were no perceived risks? They don’t ban vitamins.

In general, the deal with all these banned substances is that they are or can potentially be harmful, at least as used by these players. And if you allow some players to get a competitive edge by taking them, then all other players are pressured to take them as well in order to compete, with no real net gain in the end. So that even someone who would prefer not to risk his long term health by taking them might have to take them in order to keep things level. But it’s a health issue. Otherwise let all the players (and anyone else who wants to) take them.

Of course, once it’s illegal or banned then if someone takes it anyway they’re cheating, in that they’re getting an edge over the “clean” players who play by the rules. But that’s only after it’s illegal/banned, which as above doesn’t seem to have any rationale other than players’ health.

[Munch]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

There are a lot of drugs that fit that category - illegal without a prescription.

Then how about DMAAs, which are banned by MLB (under “methylhexaneamine”), but are sold at GNC? JC Romero was suspended 50 games for taking an over the counter supplement, the generic of which added one of the banned substances. So what’s the rationalization for that?

Now, I’m not arguing for the legalization of PEDs, harmful or not. I’m just pointing out that there’s not quite a cut and dry reason why MLB has drawn the line where they have.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t know.

What are you suggesting?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

[

“I know the evidence against Alex Rodriguez, and I will tell you this: It will never stand up in a court of law or in an arbitration-panel courtroom. Never,” Tacopina told host Matt Lauer.

“Alex Rodriguez, when we confront this evidence, will have been found not responsible to the point where he shouldn’t serve one inning of a suspension as opposed to 211 games,” Tacopina said. “I know the evidence in this case.”

Lauer asked Tacopina if A-Rod would have agreed to a 50-game ban, as 12 other players did without appealing.

“If he listens to me, if I were advising him based on the evidence and based on what I know about the evidence,” Tacopina said, “I would tell him, `Don’t take one inning, Alex. Forget 50 games. Don’t take one inning.'”

](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BBA_RODRIGUEZ_LAWYER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-19-12-29-22)

His lawyer seems pretty confident, but how much of it just bluster for public consumption and how much of it is actually warranted?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Snowboarder_Bo

[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BBA_RODRIGUEZ_LAWYER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-19-12-29-22]

His lawyer seems pretty confident, but how much of it just bluster for public consumption and how much of it is actually warranted?

You left out a third possibility which is bluster for Joe Tacopina PR purposes.

He is in general a pretty blustery guy.

[Skywatcher]

Alex Rodriguez has sued Major League Baseball, accusing the league of engaging in “tortious interference” in an effort to force him from the sport and potentially cost him tens of millions of dollars.