Melky Cabrera suspended 50 games for performance enhancing drug use

Melky Cabrera, your new poster boy for PED use, will be taking a 50-game vacation

8/15/12 in MLB   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

July 23, 2012; San Francisco, CA, USA; San Francisco Giants left fielder Melky Cabrera (53) is walked in for a run after a bases loaded walk against the San Diego Padres during the first inning at AT&T Park. Mandatory Credit: Kelley L Cox-US PRESSWIREKen Rosenthal just reported on Twitter that Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera has been suspended 50 games by Major League Baseball after testing positive for testosterone.

Cabrera, who won the All Star game MVP award and is currently 2nd in the NL in batting average, will miss the remainder of the regular season for the Giants, who have 45 games remaining.

This means that Cabrera could theoretically be available as soon as game 5 of the NLDS, in the event that the Giants make it that far. If they qualify for one of the wild card spots, win that game, and then make it to game 5, Cabrera would be able to play. Otherwise, he might be available as late as game 3 of the NLCS or game 6 of the regular season, depending on how the Giants fare.

Cabrera responded to the suspension, saying "my positive test was the result of my use of a substance I should not have used. I am deeply sorry for my mistake."

Right now, Cabrera trails Andrew McCutchen by .013 for the NL lead in batting average. Cabrera has 501 plate appearances, but would need 502 to qualify for the batting title.

In the event that Cabrera is leading the league at the end of the season, one "out" would be added to his totals in order to get him up to the necessary number of plate appearances. If he's still leading after that, he would be the batting champ. So, it's theoretically possible for him to serve his suspension and still win the batting title.

This is yet another black eye on the game of baseball, a sport that has been haunted by PED use for over two decades now.

Cabrera's performance this year has been the epitome of "enhanced," showing once again that they call them "performance enhancing drugs" for a reason.

Cabrera has a .906 OPS, almost 100 points higher than his career high of .809m, which was set last year. Before 2011, he had a career OPS of .707. His OPS+ had been 85, but was 121 in 2011 and 158 in 2012. In case you're not familiar with OPS+, a 100 is considered average. He was a below average hitter for his first 6 seasons, and then was well above average in 2011 before turning into a top 5 overall hitter in the NL in 2012.

There should be no question whatsoever that his performance was aided by whatever drugs he was taking, and his elevated testosterone levels were pretty indicative of that.

Ironically, a baseball writer from the Bay Area tweeted that he had heard a rumor that Cabrera was going to be suspended back on July 27. After backlash from Cabrera and fans, he issued an apology, saying that he did more harm than good.

As it  turns out... he was right, and his rumor has now been substantiated. So kudos to Andrew Baggarly of CSN Bay Area, who broke the news way before anyone else, even if he wasn't 100% sure.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

8/17/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

I know. This is what I keep saying, over and over again.

You keep repeating the "All things being equal" mantra.  Which I already addressed.

Probably because eyeglasses and contact lenses have already been legal for years.

So now it's not about what is natural but about what is legal?  Fine.  It's still horribly inconsistent.

Testosterone does not really help so much with muscle recovery as it does with just more vitality in general.  So it is essentially just getting oneself up for the game.  Steroid and HGH have the recovery affect.  But again, it's a slippery slope saying one medication is cheating while another is completely acceptable.

Your comment about not being as smart as you thought...  Well...  That just sounds like bitterness because I don't fall for the myth that everything on the banned substance list makes baseball players play better.  I forgive you.  smiley

8/17/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

It's a ton more than simply "more muscle = more power". 

I know. This is what I keep saying, over and over again.

"Why is that acceptable when better eyesight does 100X more to help a baseball player than all the steroids in the world would?  It's best not to use the "unnatural" argument."

Probably because eyeglasses and contact lenses have already been legal for years. But I don't make the rules.

"It sounds to me you are claiming that Conte is saying that testosterone is essentially equivalent to downing an energy drink."

Well, somewhere between me typing words and you reading them, there is a clear disconnect. Because that is nothing like what I'm trying to say. There's a difference between muscle recovery and a quick caffeine boost. It's shocking to me that you don't understand that, and keep making this asinine comparison. For some godforsaken reason, I thought you were smarter than that. I stand corrected.

8/17/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Pat wrote:
"Actually, the stronger guy won't drive the ball further in most cases.  And in the few cases he does it won't be by much at all.  When players try to "muscle up" they do not hit the ball as far.  The same is true in baseball.  A smooth controlled swing does much more than trying to hit the ball hard.  Sorry but that's just the mechanics of it."

Now you're once again disregarding the "all other factors being equal" part.

A smooth controlled swing, when initiated by someone with more strength than someone else with an identically smooth controlled swing, will generate more bat speed, and thus hit the ball harder/farther.

Also, go listen to Victor Conte's recent interview on the subject, and you'll learn a thing or two about how testosterone helps a player. While it doesn't immediately produce more hits, it does help a player recover unnaturally fast from injuries/bumps/bruises/etc, and it lessens the effects of a long 162-game season, which tend to cause a player to break down and see a decline in performance over time.

If a player feels as fresh on day 120 as he did on day 1, wouldn't that help his performance? Particularly compared to someone who is worn down from the rigors of a long season?

No disregarding.  It doesn't quite work that way.  You are creating an impossible situation to force someone to agree to your flawed conclusion.  The fact remains that medical studies have been inconclusive and the statistical analysis doesn't support it.  It's just not as simple as you are making it out.  It's a ton more than simply "more muscle = more power".  

The benefit of returning to the field faster after an injury is a very slippery slope.  Especially when you speak about "natural" recovery time.  Advances in medicine has made all recovery "unnatural".  And then there is the entire argument about how LASIK surgery in 100% unnatural.  A DIRECT man made increase in the ability to see above that of other average eyeballs.  Why is that acceptable when better eyesight does 100X more to help a baseball player than all the steroids in the world would?  It's best not to use the "unnatural" argument.  It's full of holes.

It sounds to me you are claiming that Conte is saying that testosterone is essentially equivalent to downing an energy drink.  I find myself wondering how that is any different than anything the players have taken to get "up" for games over the last 80+ years.  Of course, if Red Bull is also a banned substance then you may have a little bit of a point there....

8/17/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

ML31 wrote:
Actually, the stronger guy won't drive the ball further in most cases.  And in the few cases he does it won't be by much at all.  When players try to "muscle up" they do not hit the ball as far.  The same is true in baseball.  A smooth controlled swing does much more than trying to hit the ball hard.  Sorry but that's just the mechanics of it.

By lumping the steroid use in with all the other training regimes you are severely lessening their impact on performance.  It's like saying Sugar Frosted Flakes is a "part of this complete breakfast".  When the rest of the breakfast has fruits and other really good healthy things in it.  But remove the SFF's and the benefit of the food remains the same.  Substitute adding any banned substance to a training regime and the on field performance does not increase in any significant fashion.

Still waiting to hear how testosterone helps players get more base hits....

"Actually, the stronger guy won't drive the ball further in most cases.  And in the few cases he does it won't be by much at all.  When players try to "muscle up" they do not hit the ball as far.  The same is true in baseball.  A smooth controlled swing does much more than trying to hit the ball hard.  Sorry but that's just the mechanics of it."

Now you're once again disregarding the "all other factors being equal" part.

A smooth controlled swing, when initiated by someone with more strength than someone else with an identically smooth controlled swing, will generate more bat speed, and thus hit the ball harder/farther.

Also, go listen to Victor Conte's recent interview on the subject, and you'll learn a thing or two about how testosterone helps a player. While it doesn't immediately produce more hits, it does help a player recover unnaturally fast from injuries/bumps/bruises/etc, and it lessens the effects of a long 162-game season, which tend to cause a player to break down and see a decline in performance over time.

If a player feels as fresh on day 120 as he did on day 1, wouldn't that help his performance? Particularly compared to someone who is worn down from the rigors of a long season?

8/17/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Pat wrote:
Once again... IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL... in other words, if two people with the same exact mechanics hit a golf ball and one is stronger, is he not more likely to hit a longer drive?

"There is NO EVIDENCE ANYTHING ON MLB'S BANNED SUBSTANCE LIST WILL HELP A PLAYER HIT MORE HOMERS, THROW HARDER FASTBALLS OR GET MORE BASE HITS.  NONE."

In and of itself, no, there is not. But there is evidence that one can refine one's skills to a higher than normal level, if one combines performance enhancing drugs with a certain workout regimen.

This is why Bonds didn't gain arm strength or speed, but instead gained absurd HR power. That's what he was focusing on. He took performance enhancing drugs, and then used the benefits of those to enhance his workouts in a way that clearly helped him develop into a better power hitter.

Once again, your over-simplification of it is what is clouding your judgment. Of course it's not simply a matter of "here, take these drugs and you'll suddenly morph into a Hall of Famer." But that doesn't mean that they don't help at all.

Actually, the stronger guy won't drive the ball further in most cases.  And in the few cases he does it won't be by much at all.  When players try to "muscle up" they do not hit the ball as far.  The same is true in baseball.  A smooth controlled swing does much more than trying to hit the ball hard.  Sorry but that's just the mechanics of it.

By lumping the steroid use in with all the other training regimes you are severely lessening their impact on performance.  It's like saying Sugar Frosted Flakes is a "part of this complete breakfast".  When the rest of the breakfast has fruits and other really good healthy things in it.  But remove the SFF's and the benefit of the food remains the same.  Substitute adding any banned substance to a training regime and the on field performance does not increase in any significant fashion.

Still waiting to hear how testosterone helps players get more base hits....

8/17/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

Pat wrote:
I really do appreciate your contrarianism, and I respect the lengths that you're willing to go to just to try to prove me wrong.

But you and I both know that with all other factors being equal, it's ignorant to believe that the stronger player wouldn't have quicker bat speed.

Don't be ignorant, or even feign ignorance. You're better than that.

First off, I'm not feigning ignorance, so from the bottom of my heart, f##k you for implying that. Honestly Pat, I do think that steroids enhance performance but I'm not convinced that it increases bat speed. It very well may but every other aplication I can think of, which deals mostly with heavy equipment, speed at articulating points isn't increased with increased power of the hydraulics. If you want to believe that steroids make people into power hitters that's your right, congratulations on falling in with the herd and accepting everything at face value, but don't insult me because I don't fawn over every word you say. That's really low class bro.

8/17/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

beerstudk wrote:
Yes it is, but it's still just an assumption and you should know better than most that assumptions mean next to nothing

I really do appreciate your contrarianism, and I respect the lengths that you're willing to go to just to try to prove me wrong.

But you and I both know that with all other factors being equal, it's ignorant to believe that the stronger player wouldn't have quicker bat speed.

Don't be ignorant, or even feign ignorance. You're better than that.

8/17/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

Pat wrote:
One quick question:
If two people have the same exact swing, same stance, same mechanics, same hand-eye coordination, same EVERYTHING... but one is stronger, who is more likely to be swinging the bat faster at the point of impact?

If all other factors are identical, but one player is stronger, is it not reasonable to assume that the stronger individual will be able to generate more bat speed?

Yes it is, but it's still just an assumption and you should know better than most that assumptions mean next to nothing

8/17/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

ML31 wrote:
Yes.  You are dead on.  In fact, many of the longer drivers in golf are also leaner guys.  It's not so much about muscle as it is about mechanics.  

Just my 2 cents.

Once again... IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL... in other words, if two people with the same exact mechanics hit a golf ball and one is stronger, is he not more likely to hit a longer drive?

"There is NO EVIDENCE ANYTHING ON MLB'S BANNED SUBSTANCE LIST WILL HELP A PLAYER HIT MORE HOMERS, THROW HARDER FASTBALLS OR GET MORE BASE HITS.  NONE."

In and of itself, no, there is not. But there is evidence that one can refine one's skills to a higher than normal level, if one combines performance enhancing drugs with a certain workout regimen.

This is why Bonds didn't gain arm strength or speed, but instead gained absurd HR power. That's what he was focusing on. He took performance enhancing drugs, and then used the benefits of those to enhance his workouts in a way that clearly helped him develop into a better power hitter.

Once again, your over-simplification of it is what is clouding your judgment. Of course it's not simply a matter of "here, take these drugs and you'll suddenly morph into a Hall of Famer." But that doesn't mean that they don't help at all.

8/17/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

beerstudk wrote:
Not that I want to get involved in another lengthly debate with you that will undoubtably end up getting either of us anywhere and is only slightly more enjoyable than sticking my penis in a chipper/shredder, but having a degree in a very physics dependent engineering field I would like to point out that strength does not matter as much as you seem to think in baseball.

Newton's 2nd law of motion states that Force=Mass*Acceleration, and in hittng that means that basically whoever can swing the bat fastest AT THE POINT OF MPACT WITH THE BALL generally hits the ball harder/farther.  Meaning, in my humble opinion that is based on endless hours of studying physics I have endured in my lifetime, that you must have great bat-speed not shear brute strength.

Knowing also what I do about the human body, you either have those type of reflexes or you don't and its questionable at best that PED's enhance them over an extended amount of time.  Meth and cocaine (extremely strong stimulants) will help with those reflexes for short periods until a tolerance is built up, but I'm not entirely convinced that steroids would.  There's definately a lot of gray area....

One quick question:
If two people have the same exact swing, same stance, same mechanics, same hand-eye coordination, same EVERYTHING... but one is stronger, who is more likely to be swinging the bat faster at the point of impact?

If all other factors are identical, but one player is stronger, is it not reasonable to assume that the stronger individual will be able to generate more bat speed?

8/16/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

beerstudk wrote:
Not that I want to get involved in another lengthly debate with you that will undoubtably end up getting either of us anywhere and is only slightly more enjoyable than sticking my penis in a chipper/shredder, but having a degree in a very physics dependent engineering field I would like to point out that strength does not matter as much as you seem to think in baseball.

Newton's 2nd law of motion states that Force=Mass*Acceleration, and in hittng that means that basically whoever can swing the bat fastest AT THE POINT OF MPACT WITH THE BALL generally hits the ball harder/farther.  Meaning, in my humble opinion that is based on endless hours of studying physics I have endured in my lifetime, that you must have great bat-speed not shear brute strength.

Knowing also what I do about the human body, you either have those type of reflexes or you don't and its questionable at best that PED's enhance them over an extended amount of time.  Meth and cocaine (extremely strong stimulants) will help with those reflexes for short periods until a tolerance is built up, but I'm not entirely convinced that steroids would.  There's definately a lot of gray area....

Yes.  You are dead on.  In fact, many of the longer drivers in golf are also leaner guys.  It's not so much about muscle as it is about mechanics.  

Just my 2 cents.

8/16/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

But the fact that Alex Sanchez (for example) tested positive for banned substances doesn't suddenly mean they're ineffective, merely because Sanchez was ineffective at the plate.

Why not?  That's the same argument you use.  Again, you can't have it only one way. 


For 5 years, Melky Cabrera was a below average player. 
Last year, he was significantly better than average.
This year, he has been an All Star and a borderline MVP candidate.
This year, he tested positive for a banned substance.


Fallacy.  First, the same logic stream could be used to claim that Roger Maris was using PED's as well.  Next, the argument you just used is a Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions.  Example:  My cat has 4 legs.  My dog has 4 legs.  Therefore, my cat is a dog.

I don't think it's unreasonable to connect his enhanced performance with pharmaceutical aids.

To rational clear thinking individuals it's completely unreasonable.  I understand the idea that steroid or HGH use leads to hitting the ball farther.  It's flawed, but I get how people can think that way.  In this case, there is no reason to think that testosterone use leads to more base hits.  Perhaps you can enlighten all us ignorant folks here on that one...

And don't forget that we have seen similar situations with players like Roger Maris, Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax.  All of whom clearly used performance enhancers.  Just look at their numbers!

There's a reason these substances are banned, not only in baseball, but in many sports worldwide.

Yes.  And believe it or not, it's not the reason you think.  It's banned for the similar reasons heroine and cocaine is banned.  Unless you think that just because Dock Ellis threw a no hitter high on LSD means LSD is a performance enhancer. 

WITH ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

I never twist people's words.  People often do that themselves.  First, all things aren't equal.  Next, strength also leads to throwing farther and running faster.  Yet Barry Bonds, for example, never increased his arm strength and his running speed slowed down.  There are just way too many other factors that people love to ignore.

Nick Punto can take all the PED's he could get his hands on.  He will never be better with them than he is without them.  He will probably recover from an injury slightly faster.  He may even be up for games a little better.  But downing 5 hour energy will do that too.  And no one has ever answered my question of Red Bull is a banned substance.

I'm not disregarding the drug use.  I am merely being reasonable about it.  The problem is jumping to ludicrous unsupported conclusions about it.  Read this very carefully and slowly.  It is the God's honest truth.  There is NO EVIDENCE ANYTHING ON MLB'S BANNED SUBSTANCE LIST WILL HELP A PLAYER HIT MORE HOMERS, THROW HARDER FASTBALLS OR GET MORE BASE HITS.  NONE.  Of course, things could change in the future.  But that is the case as of this writing.

8/16/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

Pat wrote:
"The bottom line is you think everything on the banned substance list can make players run faster, throw harder, hit further or, in this case, get more singles."

Absolutely and unequivocally false. Your attempts to oversimplify my opinions in order to make me look stupid only serve to expose your own ignorance.

I know it's a lot more complex than that. But I also know that certain items on the banned substance list can change the body in a way that makes it unnaturally stronger, or makes muscle tissue recover and rebuild at an abnormal rate, or changes hormonal balance that impacts a person's strength.

That, coupled with the natural and finely honed abilities they already have, has a tendency to equate to elevated performance levels that could not have been achieved without the assistance of the banned substances.

You, on the other hand, believe it's merely coincidence that Melky has had 2 seasons drastically better than the norm that he had established over the previous 5 seasons, and suddenly tested positive for a banned substance.

I'm sure you also believe that some of the elevated home run totals we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s were just coincidental as well.

Not that I want to get involved in another lengthly debate with you that will undoubtably end up getting either of us anywhere and is only slightly more enjoyable than sticking my penis in a chipper/shredder, but having a degree in a very physics dependent engineering field I would like to point out that strength does not matter as much as you seem to think in baseball.

Newton's 2nd law of motion states that Force=Mass*Acceleration, and in hittng that means that basically whoever can swing the bat fastest AT THE POINT OF MPACT WITH THE BALL generally hits the ball harder/farther.  Meaning, in my humble opinion that is based on endless hours of studying physics I have endured in my lifetime, that you must have great bat-speed not shear brute strength.

Knowing also what I do about the human body, you either have those type of reflexes or you don't and its questionable at best that PED's enhance them over an extended amount of time.  Meth and cocaine (extremely strong stimulants) will help with those reflexes for short periods until a tolerance is built up, but I'm not entirely convinced that steroids would.  There's definately a lot of gray area....

8/16/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

ML31 wrote:
Funny....  You just accused me of doing exactly what you did.  Oversimplifying to cover your own ignorance.  It works both ways you know.  However, I'm not doing it in an attempt to make anyone look stupid.  I'm doing it because based on most of the steroid or banned substance thread comments simple is the best way to respond.

Strength doesn't directly translate to power.  If you are a lineman in the NFL, sure.  But not for a hitter of baseballs.  And it certainly doesn't help a player up his batting average.

You are only correct in the idea that some of the banned substances can lead to quicker recovery.  Which is why, I think, most players dabble in it.  To get back on the field.  But making players hit better?  That's a complete myth that the stats just don't back up

BTW...  Where are you when all the other players who get caught who show NO statistical performance increase?  Did Guillermo Moto get better?  How about Edison Volquez?   It's amazing how those who think all the banned substances make players better seem to forget about the majority of players this so-called p"performance enhancer" doesn't seem to enhance performance.

One of these days, I'll sit down and write a lengthy post to explain everything that is clearly lost on you. But the fact that Alex Sanchez (for example) tested positive for banned substances doesn't suddenly mean they're ineffective, merely because Sanchez was ineffective at the plate.

Much like every other drug on the planet, not everyone sees the exact same results. Also, not everyone is starting from the same reference point.

Here's what we DO know:
For 5 years, Melky Cabrera was a below average player. 
Last year, he was significantly better than average.
This year, he has been an All Star and a borderline MVP candidate.
This year, he tested positive for a banned substance.

One could assume that either:
a) It's a crazy coincidence.
or
b) his sudden dramatic increase in performance can be linked to his use of banned substances.

Based on what I've seen in the past, I don't think it's unreasonable to connect his enhanced performance with pharmaceutical aids. We've seen similar situations with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Ken Caminiti, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, and others.

Have we also seen some guys who took similar drugs and NOT suddenly transformed into Hall of Fame caliber players? Of course. But maybe their workout regimen was different, and they didn't experience the full benefit of the drugs.Maybe their body reacted differently. Maybe they just weren't quite as good to begin with.

There's a reason these substances are banned, not only in baseball, but in many sports worldwide.

Also, your claim that "strength doesn't relate to power" is simply foolish. While it's not the sole factor, it is definitely related. With all else being equal (mechanics, height, hand-eye coordination, etc), a player will have more power if he's stronger. Before you try to twist my words, remember that I said WITH ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

That means that Nick Punto could take all the drugs in the world and probably never compare to Albert Pujols. But he might be a little better than "clean" Nick Punto, and that's all that matters.

There are many factors that go into a player's performance. To disregard drug use would be as foolish as disregarding diet, workout routines, and any other factor that is related to a player's performance.

8/16/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

ML31 wrote:
Funny....  You just accused me of doing exactly what you did.  Oversimplifying to cover your own ignorance.  It works both ways you know.  However, I'm not doing it in an attempt to make anyone look stupid.  I'm doing it because based on most of the steroid or banned substance thread comments simple is the best way to respond.

Strength doesn't directly translate to power.  If you are a lineman in the NFL, sure.  But not for a hitter of baseballs.  And it certainly doesn't help a player up his batting average.

You are only correct in the idea that some of the banned substances can lead to quicker recovery.  Which is why, I think, most players dabble in it.  To get back on the field.  But making players hit better?  That's a complete myth that the stats just don't back up

BTW...  Where are you when all the other players who get caught who show NO statistical performance increase?  Did Guillermo Moto get better?  How about Edison Volquez?   It's amazing how those who think all the banned substances make players better seem to forget about the majority of players this so-called p"performance enhancer" doesn't seem to enhance performance.

I've noticed that Pat does that too..... 

8/16/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Funny....  You just accused me of doing exactly what you did.  Oversimplifying to cover your own ignorance.  It works both ways you know.  However, I'm not doing it in an attempt to make anyone look stupid.  I'm doing it because based on most of the steroid or banned substance thread comments simple is the best way to respond.

Strength doesn't directly translate to power.  If you are a lineman in the NFL, sure.  But not for a hitter of baseballs.  And it certainly doesn't help a player up his batting average.

You are only correct in the idea that some of the banned substances can lead to quicker recovery.  Which is why, I think, most players dabble in it.  To get back on the field.  But making players hit better?  That's a complete myth that the stats just don't back up

BTW...  Where are you when all the other players who get caught who show NO statistical performance increase?  Did Guillermo Moto get better?  How about Edison Volquez?   It's amazing how those who think all the banned substances make players better seem to forget about the majority of players this so-called p"performance enhancer" doesn't seem to enhance performance.

8/16/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

"The bottom line is you think everything on the banned substance list can make players run faster, throw harder, hit further or, in this case, get more singles."

Absolutely and unequivocally false. Your attempts to oversimplify my opinions in order to make me look stupid only serve to expose your own ignorance.

I know it's a lot more complex than that. But I also know that certain items on the banned substance list can change the body in a way that makes it unnaturally stronger, or makes muscle tissue recover and rebuild at an abnormal rate, or changes hormonal balance that impacts a person's strength.

That, coupled with the natural and finely honed abilities they already have, has a tendency to equate to elevated performance levels that could not have been achieved without the assistance of the banned substances.

You, on the other hand, believe it's merely coincidence that Melky has had 2 seasons drastically better than the norm that he had established over the previous 5 seasons, and suddenly tested positive for a banned substance.

I'm sure you also believe that some of the elevated home run totals we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s were just coincidental as well.

8/16/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

No Pat.  I am very aware of what these things do.  I've been curious and have read a great deal about it over the last 6 years.  The bottom line is you think everything on the banned substance list can make players run faster, throw harder, hit further or, in this case, get more singles.  People who accept this myth are completely oblivious to the multitude of facts that suggest otherwise.  Not sure why people think the Marvel Universe is real.  But some do. 

8/16/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

ML, I've had this conversation with you more times than I care to count. The bottom line is that if you continue to deny the effects of performance enhancing drugs, it's clear that you have no interest in understanding how these drugs affect the body. There's really nothing else to talk about.

8/16/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

Pat wrote:
So... they call these things "performance enhancing drugs," and players knowingly risk their career to take them, believing that they'll give them an advantage, and Cabrera's numbers noticeably shot up over the past few years after being a sub-par player for 5 years, and you don't think there's any connection there at all? Really?

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, good sir.
(Edited by ML31)

If it were true of all players caught I would agree.  But for every player like Melky who tests positive while having a good season there are 4 others who do with no statistical performance increase.  There just is no connection.  This is not science fiction.  People can't just take pills and drugs and turn themselves into supermen. 

Yes, testosterone can increase performance...  In certain places.   But it doesn't make someone suddenly get more base hits.  And that isn't even a power thing.   I'm guessing there are many who think Red Bull really does give players wings.

You were saying something about denial? 


PS:  It is ludicrous to think everything on the banned substance list enhances performance in everything  one does100% across the board merely because they are called  "performance enhancers".  And of course since Kellogg's calls their product "Apple Jacks" it means there is actually apples in them too...        Please get real.

8/15/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

ML31 wrote:
That very well could be finish to any kind of Division title for the good guys. 

He took the stuff and must face the consequences.  That said, it's foolhardy to think that testosterone was responsible for his performance this season.  There simply is no connection it would do anything more than a can of Red Bull will do.  Unless Red Bull is on the banned substance list too...

So... they call these things "performance enhancing drugs," and players knowingly risk their career to take them, believing that they'll give them an advantage, and Cabrera's numbers noticeably shot up over the past few years after being a sub-par player for 5 years, and you don't think there's any connection there at all? Really?

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, good sir.

8/15/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

That very well could be finish to any kind of Division title for the good guys. 

He took the stuff and must face the consequences.  That said, it's foolhardy to think that testosterone was responsible for his performance this season.  There simply is no connection it would do anything more than a can of Red Bull will do.  Unless Red Bull is on the banned substance list too...

8/15/12   |   MortonsLaw   |   156 respect

Pat wrote:
Perhaps it's sad if you're Melky Cabrera. But unbelievable? Not really. I mean... the numbers are right there.

In all reality, Giants fans should be thrilled that he didn't just get signed to a 5-7 year deal for tons of money.

Yeah, they're already being robbed by Zito and now Lincecum appears to be another bad contract. At least they're only on the hook for one more year of that.

8/15/12   |   Pat   |   5232 respect

Jeff_P wrote:
wow.........UNBELIEVEABLE..........sooooooooo sad...........

Perhaps it's sad if you're Melky Cabrera. But unbelievable? Not really. I mean... the numbers are right there.

In all reality, Giants fans should be thrilled that he didn't just get signed to a 5-7 year deal for tons of money.

8/15/12   |   Jeff_P   |   19891 respect

Scott wrote:
I wonder how bad Melky Cabrera is kicking himself now for putting off until the offseason the negotiations to sign an extension with the Giants

wow.........UNBELIEVEABLE..........sooooooooo sad...........

8/15/12   |   Scott   |   53571 respect

I wonder how bad Melky Cabrera is kicking himself now for putting off until the offseason the negotiations to sign an extension with the Giants