JoGui worked with ARod's banned trainer

Well, at least he's working with the best.

about 3 years ago RoyalsRetro 19 comments 0 recs |

Comments

We already know Guillen used PEDs

He admitted using HGH last year after his purchase of it was made public.

Why was Guillen so bad and out of shape last year? I am surprised more people don’t make the connection. Maybe 2008 was Jose-au-natural. I hope not.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Feb 22, 2009 1:42 PM EST reply actions

Because HGH doesn't improve performance

That is, if you believe those pesky scientists. Nor does HGH get you into shape.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 22, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

HGH does improve performance

If you believe those other pesky scientists you choose to ignore. Or those thousands of guys who spend millions of dollars buying it. Or all those sports organizations and international bodies which have called it a PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG and ban it.

You don’t have to believe it, but I hate to see you repeat the minority view as if it were a fact.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Feb 22, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

No scientific study has ever found that HGH increases strength or endurance

(or any other performance variable) None. Science counts. I don’t know why you choose to ignore it. Perhaps it is banned because 1) it is assumed to enhance performance, and 2) because it is dangerous. Both of those things are certainly true.

You don’t have to believe it, but I hate to see you repeat the minority view as if it were a fact.

Among the scientists who have studied the performance effects of HGH, it is the unanimous view. I’ve pointed this out to you for over a year. I’ve provided the links to studies and studies which talk about the unanimity of research findings. But those facts mean nothing to you. I have no idea why.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions

deja vu

can each of you link/cite the studies you’re referring to so we can settle this once and for all (or at least I can form an opinion)?

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Feb 23, 2009 1:01 AM EST up reply actions

Last year NYR and I did the "My link is better than your link" thing.

I’m sure you can find it in the archives if you care to look. It sucked up about three hours of my life back then and I don’t care to go through it again.

A simple google search will show that NYR’s point of view exists, there is a debate, but no body charged with classifying or policing PED’s in organized sports has accepted the view that HGH does not increase performance. In fact every policing body classifies it as a PED.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Feb 23, 2009 9:02 AM EST up reply actions

Scientists vs. sports organizations

Which do you think knows better about whether HGH enhances performance? Those who have done double blind studies to test this, or those who are making suppositions based on little or no anecdotal evidence? Science counts. Facts count. Assuming isn’t proof.

And these organizations likely aren’t too interested in whether HGH really enhances performance because it should be banned regardless due to how dangerous it is.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 9:09 AM EST up reply actions

You know as well as I do

that there is no consensus in the medical community regarding HGH as a PED. I assume you read the sites I linked last year. Maybe you didn’t. All facts count, not just the ones you choose to fixate on.

Maybe you are right, and HGH does nothing to help baseball players perform better. The thing is, you have no idea if you are right or wrong. And you know you are presenting a point of view that has not been accepted by any anti-doping agency in the world. But I guess you place your faith in a handful of articles you found on the internet rather than trust the professional bodies who actually make knowledge of PEDs their business. All those bodies have reached the same conclusion. HGH is universally classified as a PED.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Feb 23, 2009 9:22 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, there really is a consensus

Not 100, but close to it. There also isn’t 100 agreement on evolution. I can find a couple of scientists who don’t buy it. I think gravity has a couple detractors as well.

Maybe you are right, and HGH does nothing to help baseball players perform better. The thing is, you have no idea if you are right or wrong.

I know what the overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence says. That gives me some idea if I am right or wrong.

But I guess you place your faith in a handful of articles you found on the internet

Did you read those studies? Did you read the summaries of existing research within the studies? Do you think those studies lied about the fact that there has been virtually no evidence showing a performance enhancement from HGH use? These aren’t just isolated studies. As the literature points out quite clearly, they are mere elements of a greater consensus.

But I guess you place your faith in a handful of articles you found on the internet rather than trust the professional bodies who actually make knowledge of PEDs their business. All those bodies have reached the same conclusion. HGH is universally classified as a PED.

First, it was banned before much scientific inquiry had been done with regard to whether HGH actually enhances performance. They banned it because it might enhance performance and because it was definitely dangerous. Now it has been proven that HGH does not enhance performance, but it is still very dangerous. And because the popular perception is that HGH actually enhances performance, many idiots in sports use it. So because they think it could help them and because it is so dangerous, they are maintaining the ban. Do you think that performance enhancement is the only reason drugs are banned in sports? Are marijuana and various narcotics banned because they enhance performance? Certainly not. There are other factors.

But you can keep clinging to the fact that HGH is banned by sporting organizations as your only proof that HGH enhances performance. That is a very myopic and strangely anti-intellectual argument from you. There is scientific evidence out there. And that evidence clearly points in one direction. You hunt for any outlier you can find to pretend that there is a big split in the scientific community and nobody really knows. That’s just like conservatives who find a couple scientists denying global warming and then pretend that there’s really no scientific consensus. Unfortunately, such is not the case.

But hey, I know you don’t want to bicker about this.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions

We keep coming back to the same point.

People who actually devote their professional lives to identifying and policing PEDs in sports universally classify HGH as a PED.

You found some interesting articles on the internet, which I did read, and they have established that a debate exists regarding the effectivness of HGH. But I have no doubt that the people who regard HGH as a PED know a lot more about the topic than you or I do. And the Olympic anti-doping agency trumps guys with no medical training who cherry-pick articles found with a google search.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Feb 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs

I guess science is for suckers

And sports organizations ban drugs for only one reason. Right? Come on JQ, you can do better than that. But you’re not interested in it. You just want to assume that HGH enhances performance regardless of what the scientific evidence shows. And the evidence doesn’t show that there is a serious debate in the scientific/medical community about whether HGH enhances performance. There isn’t.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions

Some documentation as a reminder

HGH produces no increase in oxygen uptake, or power.

HGH use does not increase strength or athletic performance. (this study includes a summary of the findings of several studies which come to the same conclusion)

Many studies find a link between HGH use and increase muscle or “lean body mass.” A layperson would assume that this would lead to greater strength, endurance or improved performance in some way, but that is just not the case.

So far, no one has been able to connect the increase in lean body tissue caused by HGH with enhancement of athletic performance. Unlike steroids, growth hormone hasn’t been shown to increase weight-lifting ability; in the lab, it has a greater effect on muscle definition than muscle strength. And it doesn’t seem to help much with cardiovascular fitness, either.

Another study show HGH use not increasing muscle strength or oxygen uptake.

A textbook surveying the research and finding “no evidence that supplemental growth hormone produces effects of the same magnitude [as growth hormone deficiency] (it may not even produce normal muscle) or enhance athletic performance in a normal man or woman.” Karl E. Friedl, "Performance-Enhancing Substances," in Baechle and Earle (eds.) Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, 2e, p. 219.

An excellent survey of the research which finds:
1. HGH studies consistently find that the HGH using group shows no performance improvement over the control group.
2. HGH has some horrific side effects.
3. HGH increases muscle mass, but does not increase strength. It also provides some explanation of why this is:

Cell growth is not always a good thing. Take cancer, for example. Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth. The problem with cancer is that the cells don’t do what they are supposed to. Similarly, muscle growth stimulated by HGH doesn’t produce the same type of muscle that improves strength.

There’s a lot of discussion about this in the clinical research. While HGH helps to build muscle, it does not build normal muscle which helps someone get stronger. It is essentially useless muscle which might make you look better, but it doesn’t help you get stronger or increase your endurance.

The sum of the evidence is so overwhelming that introductory textbooks in exercise physiology state that HGH is not an ergogenic aid.

4. Unlike steroids, HGH use does not improve recovery.
While steroids improve recovery times, allow players to perform better on an everyday basis, this is not true of HGH.

The anabolic effects [of steroids] allow a person’s body to repair faster and therefore bounce back quicker to perform at a higher level. But for HGH, the evidence is that the response is not the same. Muscles do get bigger, but not stronger. The process by which muscles repair themselves is the same thing that makes them bigger and stronger. The evidence is that HGH-induced muscle is not the same as regular muscle, therefore we should not expect a recovery impact.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 1:24 AM EST up reply actions

There is a problem with all those stories as illustrated by the following article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-r-gaffney/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-h_b_88803.html

A UK study showed that HGH increased aerobic performance and respiratory muscle strength in athletes who formerly used anabolic steroids. An Australian study in abstract last spring interpreted results to suggest HGH was not performance enhancing. However when examining the 4 treatment arms, interesting results appeared: neither testosterone nor HGH separated form placebo on measures of oxygen usage, strength (dead-lifting), explosiveness (vertical jump), and a measure of anaerobic work capacity (cycling). However the combination of testosterone and HGH produced enhanced performance on one measure compared with placebo — a clear synergistic PED effect.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Feb 23, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions

How does that create a problem with all of those stories?

Sounds like you’ve found some small outliers. It’s kind of like the research on climate change. There are some few scientists who deny that meaningful climate change is happening, while there is a massive consensus that it is happening. Some people still believe in a flat earth too.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Feb 23, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions

Those articles say that HGH doesn't enhance performance on its own.

So they mean absoultely nothing about seeing if it is a catalyst for other potential PEDS, and thus it should be considered a PED, even though it technically may not be. It enchances other PEDS or may make some non PED substances turn into PEDs. It also allows cheaters to be on super roids with the same chance of being caught, thus any player that used it during the roids era in onjuction with steroids was cheating more then just doing steroids alone.

Go Royals!

by BabyBlues on Feb 24, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions