Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Mike Jacobs suspended 50 games for HGH


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9,886 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 09:03 AM

Idiot.

the player to test positive for hgh is mike jacobs, the former met .. he'll be suspended for 50 games ..

http://twitter.com/#...189521788272641

Edited by Corsi, 18 August 2011 - 09:05 AM.


#2 CeeAngi

  • 50 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 09:08 AM

Given the nature of the HGH testing (it's only detected in the blood stream, shortly after injection), I'd have to imagine that someone ratted him out....that or he has the worst timing imaginable.

Of all of the banned substances though, why would he choose HGH?

#3 redsox13


  • into coprophagia


  • 1,890 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 10:47 AM

Given the nature of the HGH testing (it's only detected in the blood stream, shortly after injection), I'd have to imagine that someone ratted him out....that or he has the worst timing imaginable.

Of all of the banned substances though, why would he choose HGH?



I think your comment actually answers your question. The window for MLB to bust him is actually very short, so he went with something that would be less likely to show up in a screen.

#4 RingoOSU


  • okie misanthrope


  • 13,388 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 10:56 AM

I wasn't aware they could blood test for HGH in the minors now. Full details here:
http://www.nytimes.c...ve-for-hgh.html
Jacobs is the first baseball player caught with the new rules.

#5 CeeAngi

  • 50 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:02 AM

I think your comment actually answers your question. The window for MLB to bust him is actually very short, so he went with something that would be less likely to show up in a screen.


Right, but HGH isn't really a performance enhancer in the ways of the other substances, from what I understand.

#6 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,781 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:17 AM

One would imagine that the answer is the guy is 30 something knows his career is basically over and might be trying anything to get back in the bigs for another paycheck.

Most players who take HGH are sold the bill of goods that it helps with injury recovery.

#7 RingoOSU


  • okie misanthrope


  • 13,388 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:21 AM

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14333402

Jacobs admits he took it to recover from knee and back injuries.

#8 RGREELEY33

  • 1,363 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:24 AM

Somewhat nice to see one of these cheats own up, take responsibility, and not b.s. about what caused the positive test.

#9 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,781 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

And then there's this fucking clown:

"All those that value clean sport know that HGH testing is a necessary part of an effective anti-doping program; otherwise you give athletes a license to use this potent performance enhancing drug with impunity," Tygart said. "This case demonstrates how MLB has stepped up to the plate and implemented HGH testing in the minor leagues to protect clean athletes and the integrity of competition."




I'm kind of sick of people completely ignoring science in favor of rhetoric, which is something that has pissed me off about the steroids bullshit basically forever.

#10 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,880 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:56 AM

Somewhat nice to see one of these cheats own up, take responsibility, and not b.s. about what caused the positive test.


I imagine bigger stars feel a bit of pressure from the union to not admit something like this publicly, as it could damage the market for future free agents. A guy like Jacobs is a nice scapegoat, though. No one cares that he popped positive and can be used to show that MLB is "cracking down" on users.

/endconspiracytheoryrant

#11 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,482 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:38 PM

And then there's this fucking clown:

I'm kind of sick of people completely ignoring science in favor of rhetoric, which is something that has pissed me off about the steroids bullshit basically forever.



Right, because its a complete coincidence that a record that was not only unbroken, but basically not seriously challenged for almost 40 years was broken 6 different times by 3 different players, all of whom later admitted to or were caught taking steriods, HGH, or both. Obviously, its just because they were the bestest darnest hardest working most talented home run hitters ever.

How's the view from under the sand?

#12 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,781 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:47 PM

Right, because its a complete coincidence that a record that was not only unbroken, but basically not seriously challenged for almost 40 years was broken 6 different times by 3 different players, all of whom later admitted to or were caught taking steriods, HGH, or both. Obviously, its just because they were the bestest darnest hardest working most talented home run hitters ever.

How's the view from under the sand?


Point me to the science that associates HGH use with the HR record. Just one piece of it, not some zealot fucktard who just believes what he wants to in the face of any evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist. Actual statistically backed science has shown no relation between HGH and any of its claims in anything more than a very small timeframe (like days), even that is just in muscle definition (i.e. elimination of subcutaneous fat) and not muscle growth, and certainly nothing links to actual performance enhancement. But hey why not just ignore biology and actual statistical evidence when there is a chance to get on a pulpit and be righteous?

BTW, since I know you won't do the research, here is a Summary article with a lot of good scientific links about HGH.

Meanwhile, here is a counterargument from someone who thinks science doesn't actually answer the question because of interactive effects or problems with various studies and largely cites anecdotal evidence for his thesis.

You guys can believe who you want, but my point is that the rhetoric has always sucked and I hate zealotry.

#13 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,387 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:09 PM

Good piece, tho I'd never heard this argument before.

#14 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20,880 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:14 PM

You guys can believe who you want, but my point is that the rhetoric has always sucked and I hate zealotry.


I'm guessing Plympton missed your focus on HGH in your previous post as many of the guys he mentioned were linked to steroids more so than HGH.