Bud Selig Maintains his "Perfect" Record

Two questions: "Will it make us money?" or "Will it increase ticket sales?"

These appear to be the only ones Bud Selig asks of himself in any situation he presides over as Commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB). Has he ever taken a principled stand? Certainly, the St. Louis Cardinals' recent hiring of Mark McGwire as a hitting coach offered Selig and MLB such an opportunity in regards to its problems with Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). But taking a principled stand rarely results in improving one's bottom line. And it requires some work too - again, not a popular thing these days.

By blowing this one, Selig keeps his streak intact of doing the wrong thing when it comes to MLB's handling of PEDs. Selig's (and hence, MLB's) acceptance of McGwire back into the Cardinals' organization with open arms sends a curious message. At a minimum, Selig missed a great opportunity to send the right message to the millions of kids who follow pro baseball and aspire to become a "big leaguer" someday.

For me, this is the issue, the principle at hand: the impression made on young ball players, by this and every other situation involving major league baseball's association with PEDs. Selig interprets continuing strong ticket sales as the public's approval of his handling of this issue. Perhaps he is right. But he could not be more wrong in how all of this is perceived by young players. I know, because I talk to them.

This is the bigger issue at hand, which Selig is missing, and may well impact the future of MLB. Baseball is far from the most popular activity amongst youngsters these days. It cannot help MLB if youngsters think they have to take drugs to succeed at it.

As an aside, I wonder why would anyone think that a "reformed" PED user is an appropriate "role model" to speak out against PEDs? Why doesn't MLB trot out star players who haven't abused PEDs? Surely there are a few. Have them speak to youngsters about the dangers of PEDs and how you can succeed without them. But I digress.

By requiring nothing of McGwire in his return to pro coaching, the message appears to be, "Break some rules, refuse to answer questions, and hide for a few years. When you're ready to return to the game (the game you helped tarnish), all will be forgiven!" Is it a stretch to think young ball players would have some questions about this? How about Selig's own MLB players?

So what should Selig have done? At a minimum, the following:

1. Before taking his new job with St. Louis, require McGwire to fully come clean about his use of PEDs - how he got them, what he used, when he used, and the like.
2. Require McGwire to honestly answer questions in a one or two hour presser. Selig reportedly said, "When he comes back, you'll all have a lot of opportunities to talk to him. The fact that he's coming back gives you an opportunity you wouldn't have had."
   

Right. If Congress couldn't get him to talk, does Selig really think a gaggle of reporters can, at least a few of whom will likely be hostile? Selig must require of McGwire a complete, full account of his PED use as a pre-condition for his new job with St. Louis, or we'll see the same kind of pitiful obfuscation previously shown.

Personally, I'd like to see some punitive measure applied to McGwire, say a ban from the game for a few years. When you look at how Pete Rose has been dealt with, it's astonishing to me that McGwire is getting off completely, with no apparent negative outcomes whatsoever. Yes, what Rose did was worse than McGwire's "crime," but not by a huge degree. Betting on games as Rose did does strike at the integrity of the game, and that is a damaging thing.

Yet who would argue that what McGwire and other PED users did did not impact the integrity of the game? How can breaking records while using illegal, banned substances be helpful or positive? But now, because these artificially acquired, PED-generated records will stay on the books (as I suppose they should, only because we don't know who all the cheaters were) baseball may be even more tarnished by PEDs than anything Rose did.

I'm not a Pete Rose fan or sycophant, but I have to wonder, what is the lasting impact of what he did? Have youngsters been affected more by what Rose did, or what McGwire did? I don't think it's even close. If you're not sure about this, spend a few minutes on Tayler Hooton's web site.

Yet Rose is banned from baseball, while McGwire merrily saunters back in.

___________________________________
© 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. These contents may not be shared, forwarded, copied or transmitted in any form, except for personal use. Intellectual property violations in the form of plagiarism, especially where the plagiarized material is offered for sale, will be met with legal action.

Training With Rubber Tubing & Bands

Tubing made of rubber or similar materials is often used by baseball and softball players for strength work, usually for “smaller” muscles such as those that are associated with the rotator cuff.
While tubing and bands are generally considered to be safe for use by players of any age, they are not without potential problems. The thing people need to remember is that these are tools for resistance training, just like free weights (barbells/dumbbells). Tubing comes in different levels of difficulty or resistance, usually denoted by their color, and develops muscles like any other type of resistance training.

Personally, I prefer free weights to tubing, or anything like tubing, primarily because of the more consistent (but not perfect) force curve produced with weights.

What this means is that the resistance is more uniform throughout the range of motion (start to finish). With tubing, depending on the movement performed, there is little or no resistance at the start of the exercise and considerably more at the end. So, with tubing, certain points in the range of motion will receive more resistance than others.

The thing to keep in mind when training with tubing is this: it is a strength training tool just like free weights. Depending on how it’s used, it can stimulate muscle tissue and produce muscle growth just like weights. It will not make a muscle “longer” or more flexible in the process. So, tubing offers no advantage in terms of muscle development, particularly for younger players, than using free weights.

I mention this because I often hear coaches recommending tubing over free weights for young players, as if it is somehow “safer” or better for youngsters. I suppose if you were to drop a piece of rubber tubing on your foot, it will hurt much less than if you were to drop a 5 lb dumbbell on it!

Yet training with tubing does requires caution. Among the hazards is that old, improperly-cared-for tubing can snap and break during use. While this usually results in a painful snap on some area of the body, there are reports of serious eye injuries resulting from broken tubing. So, I recommend doing what I do: wear a pair of safety goggles while training with tubing. Eyes are hard to replace!

How Does Tubing Work?

Muscles do one thing: they contract. They do not flex – this is what joints do, amongst other actions. So, when a muscle is stimulated by tubing or weights, it will grow. Training with tubing doesn’t somehow produce muscle growth that is preferable over the growth produced by weights.

If you want a muscle to be less “bulky” and “short,” other factors must also come into play. Among these are how the resistance program is designed, and especially, the presence (or lack of) flexibility work. Otherwise, muscle growth stimulated by tubing or weights will be pretty much the same.

Another consideration when using tubing is that it should be used in a manner that is actually beneficial to throwers. For example, a common method of training with tubing is to place the arm at the throwing release point and pulling forward (internal shoulder rotation), as illustrated:

Figure 1, Internal Rotation Work with Tubing

This type of movement is done by some with the thought that training the arm against resistance will somehow “strengthen” it for throwing, thereby enabling a player to throw harder. However, this is not true.

This training movement is exactly the opposite of what an overhand thrower does, and has the potential of slowing down a throwing arm, resulting in decreased throwing velocity. Consider that when a thrower’s arm moves forward in its throwing range of motion to the release point, the only resistance is from the ball in the hand. After ball release, the arm continues to move forward without resistance.

The movement used in Figure 3 is similar to what swimmers do with the crawl stroke, which I also do not recommend for ball players. Among my concerns is that most baseball coaches know little about swimming stroke mechanics or about properly designing a swimming workout for ball players.

An even greater consideration is the potential for throwers to develop an impingement in their shoulders by swimming. Bottom line: ball players should not do any type of serious swimming training. If you want to jump in the water and cool off, great. Just do your conditioning on land!

A simple yet effective way to train the external rotator muscles/decelerators is shown here, using a small weight. Tubing could also be used for this movement in place of the weight:

Keep in mind that an exercise doesn’t have to exactly mimic a sports movement to be of benefit. With strength and conditioning, we are training the muscles and tendons used by a particular movement, not the movement mechanics. Just be sure your exercise doesn’t work in opposition to your sports movement!

Bottom line: training with tubing for ball players is but one part of an overall strength and conditioning program. It is not required for players of a particular age or ability level, but, properly performed, can be a helpful part of a resistance training regimen.


© 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. These contents may not be shared, forwarded, copied or transmitted in any form, except for personal use. Intellectual property violations in the form of plagiarism, especially where the plagiarized material is offered for sale, will be met with legal action.

Performance Enhancers, Enablers, & Supplements - Part 2

So David Ortiz denies taking anything banned by Major League Baseball (MLB). Surprise, surprise. Even when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that players are better off owning up to their "indiscretion," guys like Ortiz insist on their innocence.

Yet it appears possible that Ortiz did not test positive for a banned substance. Well and fine - I do not want any player to be vilified for something they did not do.

My problem is with what Ortiz said, and how this matter is being covered by the media. He said he may have been careless in his use of supplements. Such a statement clouds the issue of the use of legitimate supplements. More to the point - it is IMPOSSIBLE to test positive for a banned substance, such as an anabolic steroid, by taking untainted nutritional supplements.

Why does this matter? Because Ortiz's statement suggests that one can test positive merely by taking the wrong kind, or combination, of nutritional supplements. It appears to condemn the use of legitimate products, substances as harmless as whey protein or vitamins.

So, Ortiz's positive test may have been the result of a tainted supplement. But, because the MLB Player's Association hasn't released information that would help clear up this important detail, we are left to wonder just what Ortiz might have taken to trigger his positive result.

Among the lessons for ball players is to use only products from reputable companies. Assuming proper manufacturing procedures, it is rare for supplements to be tainted by something, even accidentally. For this to happen, the manufaturer has to go out of their way to procure and intentionally add the banned substance.

Bottom line? Not only can ball players dispense with any fear regarding the use of nutritional supplements, such products can even improve their on-field performance.

Performance Enhancers, Enablers, and Supplements: What You Need to Know

So Boston’s David Ortiz is the latest drug cheat outed by Major League Baseball (MLB). Is anybody truly surprised with this latest revelation? The big names just keep falling, with another 97 or so yet to be revealed on the list of those testing positive for something banned by MLB.

My guess for the next big name to come out?

Ken Griffey Jr. &/or Albert Pujols. I offer these names not because I have any proof of their cheating, but simply because too many of the players who have been putting up big hitting numbers in recent years have also tested positive for a banned substance. This, coupled with their injury history and some unsubstantiated rumors I’ve heard over the years, places them under suspicion in my mind. Flimsy evidence, I will admit, and I do hope I’m wrong.

What’s interesting to me is that of the three MLB entities culpable for the steroid mess, it is still only the players who continue to pay the price. Management and labor? Not so much. Perhaps this is just, as it is the players who actually broke the rules. But when you consider that the testing conducted in 2003, from which the names of Ortiz, et al, are being revealed, was supposed to be confidential, something is very wrong about all of this.

At a minimum, the union which was supposed to maintain the confidentiality of the names testing positive is coming across as incompetent bozos. They had a chance to destroy the list of names and didn’t do so. I wonder when/if a player will finally get tired of this dog and pony show and sue someone (the union? the commissioner?) for allowing these names to get out. All of this would seem to make any future “anonymous/confidential” testing more problematic. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn't trust either the union or commissioner’s office to properly handle my sample for testing purposes. Oh well. MLB continues to sell tickets at a record pace, giving the appearance that not many fans care about any of this.

In this report I’ll provide some basic information on the differences between a few of the types of drugs banned by MLB as well as substances that are, as of this writing, considered to be safe, legal, and beneficial.

Let’s start with this basic concept:

Anything an athlete does to improve his on-field play
can be considered “performance enhancing”

However, I don’t care for the term, “performance enhancing drugs.” While it is an accurate description for what these substances do for players, it also seems to have the effect, in some minds, of casting a shadow of suspicion over legitimate performance enhancing activities and substances such as strength, conditioning, and nutritional supplements.

I routinely get questions and see things written on other baseball web sites that indicate to me a widespread lack of understanding regarding these matters. So I think it’s time to define a few terms to help anyone involved with the game - coaches, parents and players of all ages and ability levels – to be more informed on the issue of drugs and supplements, both legal and illegal.

Please be aware, this in not intended to be a guide for the use of any drug or substance mentioned herein. If you have questions or require additional information on anything contained in this report, contact competent medical authority.

First, there are 4 basic and accepted areas in which a player can enhance their on-field performance:

• Skills and Drills
• Strength & Conditioning
• Mental Training
• Nutrition & Recovery

Most players utilize one or more of these components in developing their game. The more of these a player employs, the better he likely will perform. Likewise, neglecting any of these elements can keep a player from maximizing their potential.

Performance ENHANCERS

Generally, these are drugs banned by MLB that are widely accepted as improving athletic performance. These include anabolic steroids, growth hormone, and agents that mask these substances. I also include amphetamines (aka speed, greenies, or beans) in this category. I do this because a player using speed during, say, a day game after a late night game will likely perform better than a player who is not. This is even more true late in the season. However, greenies would not add 5 mph to a pitcher’s fastball, or 40 feet of distance for a hitter.

What’s interesting about this is that as far as I’m aware, there are no clinical studies that demonstrate that steroids improve on-field performance. Yet is widely accepted by medical science that they do enhance athletic performance, such as hitting power, running speed, and throwing velocity.

Performance ENABLERS

These are drugs, either prescription or over-the counter, that allow a player to play but do not improve their normal abilities. All of the items that fall in this category are legal for use by anyone, including MLB players.

A good example of this is a class of drugs known as corticosteroids. A well known drug in this category is cortisone. Cortisone reduces pain and inflammation, such as is felt in an elbow or shoulder with tendonitis. This pain reduction may allow a player to stay in the lineup, but it does nothing for their resulting performance. A pitcher who throws, say, 88 mph, will not suddenly throw 95 mph because of a cortisone shot. Cortisone will only get this player on the field due to feeling less pain in their arm. It’s analogous to taking an aspirin for a headache.

Note that there are two types of steroids – anabolic (growth promoting, banned by MLB) and corticosteroids, allowed by MLB under a doctor’s supervision.

Other things that fall in this category are items such as contacts or eye glasses that allow a player to see better. While improving a ball player’s vision might improve their hitting ability, this type of “enhancement” is allowed by MLB rules and is also legal and safe.

Nutritional Supplements

This category includes the well known micro-nutrients – vitamins and minerals as well as macro-nutrients – protein, carbohydrates, and fats. All of these are components of a well balanced diet and can also be taken in pill or powder form as supplements.

It is widely accepted that eating properly can enhance athletic performance, while eating poorly can detract from it. Supplements can be an important adjunct to even a well balanced diet. However, players need to carefully choose the source of their supplements. In recent years, some nutritional companies have supplied products that were tainted by various banned substances. Any athlete who is subject to testing for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) should use only products from reputable companies.

It's important to know that it is impossible for untainted nutritional supplements to cause one to test positive for banned substances such as anabolic steroids or speed.

Back in 2004, Experimental & Applied Sciences (EAS) entered into an agreement with MLB to be their official supplier for various supplements. Put another way, EAS paid a fee rumored to be in the millions of dollars for the exclusive right for this designation as the only supplement company approved by MLB. Presumably, their products could be used by ball players and they would never test positive for any substance banned by MLB. I don’t know if this exclusive arrangement is still in force.

To sum up, drugs of all kinds have been an integral part of all sports, including MLB. Most are legal and safe, some are not. My message to ball players at all levels of the game is this:

Not everyone is using PEDs and cheating! Appropriate strength, conditioning and nutrition can safely and effectively enhance your game.

-------------------------------------
(C) 2009 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Academy
www.BaseballFit.com

Clemens or Maddux: Who’s the Best?

There’s something that’s been buggin’ me over the last few years, and that is the constant reference by many to Roger Clemens as the best pitcher of his generation. Some have gone so far as to anoint Clemens as the best pitcher of any era. Then, the unfortunate and bothersome issue of Clemens and PEDs arose, casting a shadow on his achievements. More on that particular issue later.

In recent decades we have been fortunate to witness a number of all-time great baseball performances and careers, not the least of which is that of pitcher Greg Maddux. Maddux has officially retired, and for all practical purposes, Clemens is retired too. He just hasn’t formally announced it yet.

So, for kicks, I thought I’d take a few minutes to examine and compare their career accomplishments. In this process, I’m just looking at the raw numbers and not extrapolating anything beyond that – nothing as to their ability in the “clutch,” or how they may have influenced their teams and teammates.

While I looked at all the statistics that I could find (from various Internet sources), I’ve limited my comparisons here primarily to those by which pitchers are typically ranked – wins, losses, ERA and the like:

Clemens: 6’ 4”, 220. Drafted by Boston, 1^st round, 1983. 24 years played. Record of 354-184; ERA 3.12; Winning Percentage .658; Innings Pitched, 4916; WHIP, 1.17; Batting Average Against, .206.

Maddux: 6’ 0”, 170. Drafted by the Chicago Cubs, 2^nd round, 1984, 23 years played. Record of 355-227; ERA, 3.16; Winning Percentage, .610; Innings Pitched, 5008; WHIP, 1.14; Batting Average Against, .231.

First, some general discussion. As can be seen, their statistics are remarkably similar. You’ll note that I didn’t include strikeouts, because this stat, in my mind, doesn’t really speak to the overall greatness of a pitcher. It does say something about their ability to dominate hitters, and for this and a few other reasons, Nolan Ryan gets my vote as the greatest pitcher ever. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The only substantive difference between Clemens and Maddux is in Clemens’ lower amount of losses (and hence, a higher winning percentage) and Clemens’ very low “batting average against” number. It’s as if he faced a career’s worth of hitters the caliber of Bob Uecker! Maddux’s .231 average against is also very good, but Clemens has a clear edge here.

Both Clemens’ and Maddux’s career winning percentage is over .600, impressive on its own. Hall of Fame great Tom Seaver (311-205 win/loss record) once said that among his many career achievements, perhaps the one he was most proud of was that he could go on a 100 game losing streak and still be a winning pitcher. Clemens and Maddux can both make that claim, but in Clemens’ case, he could go on a 150 game losing streak and still be a winning pitcher! So, in win/loss totals, the edge goes to Clemens.

Clemens played one more year than Maddux, but Maddux pitched in 44 more games than Clemens. Their innings pitched totals are essentially the same, as are their results for ERA and WHIP (Walks+Hits per Innings Pitched). I like using the WHIP stat in pitcher evaluation because it quickly tells the story of a pitcher’s success, or potential for same. The fewer base runners a pitcher allows, the fewer can score, and therefore, the better his chances of winning. Low WHIP usually leads to a low ERA. They are essentially even in these key areas. But, since Clemens pitched primarily in the American League (and thereby faced DHs) I give him the edge here as well.

As for major awards, both Clemens and Maddux are high achievers:

Clemens – 7 Cy Young Awards, 1 MVP

Maddux – 4 Cy Youngs, 0 MVPs (highest finish, 3^rd in 1995)

Seven Cy Youngs is crazy, like Barry Bonds’ 7 MVPs. These may be two records to never be broken. Yet, when Maddux won his 4 straight CYs (1992 – 1995) I remember thinking that this particular record would never be broken. To break it would require 5 straight CYs, which probably will never happen. But then we have to consider that Randy Johnson also won 4 straight CYs, so, I think 5 straight CYs could happen. If a pitcher gets hot during a 5 year part of his career while at the same time, no one else distinguishes themselves, it could happen. I see this as a greater possibility than someone breaking Johnny Vandermeer’s record of two straight no-hitters. To break this record, it would take 3 straight no-hitters, which will never happen at the big-league level!

Add to Clemens’ 7 CYs an MVP and he clearly has the edge here as well. Maddux did win 18 Gold Gloves, which speaks to his standing as a well-rounded performer. But I’d trade the 18 Gold Gloves for an MVP, and perhaps Maddux would as well.

So, looking strictly at the numbers, Clemens appears to have had the superior career over Maddux. But we can’t just look at the numbers, because of Clemens’ apparent use of PEDs. Do I know Clemens used PEDs? No. But I watched every minute I could of Clemens’ various TV appearances, and I read everything I could get my hands on regarding this issue. Bottom line for me? Clemens did not conduct himself as an innocent man. I’d bet a LOT of money that he used PEDs.

So this sheds a whole different light on each of their careers. Maddux and Clemens are contemporaries. Maddux is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. At one time, Clemens was too. I used to wonder if Clemens would be the first unanimous inductee, but now I doubt he’ll ever get in. Perhaps Maddux will be the first unanimous inductee. I think he should be, but there’s no accounting for the goofy thinking processes of the voters. If Cal Ripken couldn’t get 100% of the vote, probably no one ever will - yet another discussion for another day!

Here’s how I look at Clemens and his PED use: he is believed to have begun using prior to the 1998 season. His win/loss record (the only stat I want to look at here) from 1984 through 1997 was 202 – 121, a percentage of .625. These are not Hall of Fame numbers. If they are, then a lot of voters owe Bert Blyleven an apology, regardless of the number of CYs Clemens had won to this point.

From 1998 through 2007 (Clemens last competitive year) he’s 141 – 66, a percentage of .681. So, the last 10 years of his career were more successful than his first (read: younger) 14 years. Knowing what we do about the human body, this is simply not possible. Unless, of course, there is some significant outside source of help, such as PEDs.

So let’s look at Clemens’ numbers another way. Let’s say he doesn’t use PEDs during his last 10 years. How many games does he win (if he even is capable of making a team) as a viable pitcher? Who knows? Lets say he continues with the same winning percentage of his first 14 years (an impossibility, to be sure). His win total drops to
331, still HOF worthy.

How about if he wins only 50% of his games over the last 10 years, a not unreasonable guess. His win total is now down to 306, again, still HOF worthy. The problem with both of my guesses about the latter part of Clemens career is that we’ll never know how it would have turned out without his use of PEDs.

To take my guessing game one step further, what would Greg Maddux have accomplished with the use of PEDs? Can we safely conclude he would have won more than 355 games? Clearly, yes. Maddux has never been associated in any way with PEDs, and he sure doesn’t look like a user. Clemens, by contrast, does.

To wrap this up, Maddux won one more game than Clemens WITHOUT the use of PEDs! So, raw numbers aside, Maddux’s accomplishments are much more impressive than Clemens, and for this reason, I think he had the more impressive career.

Late-Season MLB Rookie Success Story Continues!

The September call up of Mike Hinckley to the Washington Nationals continues to be a resounding success. Mike's numbers through his first 11 appearances, all in relief:

ERA - 0.00
9.2 innings pitched, 0 runs allowed
5 hits, 2 walks, 1 HBP (WHIP less than 1, awesome!)
7 K's

Mike called me the other night with an update on his experiences as a big-leaguer, and yes, it's all it's cracked up to be! While his weight is down a bit, to 190 lbs, this is the most he's weighed this late in the season, so he's done a good job of maintaining the strength & growth he made last winter. Major League pro sports seasons are long and draining, yet, due to his continuing hard (and smart!) work, he's performing his best ever this late in his competitive season.

Even better for him, he's been used in a number of pressure-relief situations, not just as a lefty specialist. Obviously, this bodes well for Mike's future. We'll be getting back to his strength and conditioning work in October. We may even publish a few of our workout "secrets" on BaseballFit.com as the winter progresses, so stay tuned!

Mike Hinckley, First Game Appearance for the Nationals!

Called up on Monday, it didn't take long for Mike Hinckley to make his first appearance for the Washington Nationals. Tuesday, September 2, 2008, the dream came full circle, and in a most impressive way. I quote from Federal Baseball:

"Top Of the 7th Inning, 2 on, 1 out, 3-0 Philadelphia...

"First and third, Speigner’s done, and Mike Hinckley’s set to make his Major League debut. Hinckley vs Utley. Lefty vs Lefty. Hinckley gets a double play ball, but it’s awkward, as Rollins avoids the tag on a grounder to second, to let a run in, but gets tracked down and tagged after Anderson Hernandez first throws to first. 4-0 Phils... (both runs on Speigner)...

"Top Of The 8th...4-0 Philadelphia...

"Mike Hinckley faces Jayson Werth in the top of the eighth. 75 mph curve on the outside corner for a backwards K, his first in the Majors. Howard grounds into the shift. 92 mph curve, outside corner, Burrell K’s staring. Hinckley’s first scoreless frame."

Wow - talk about baptism by fire! Mike faced a fearsome array of hittiers - Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Pat Burrell - and came away unscathed! So, 1 2/3 innings pitched, 2 strikeouts, 0 hits - an awesome start to a big league career!

Looks like those early morning training sessions in the dark and cold of an Oklahoma winter are paying off. Time to go celebrate with a chocolate milk!

Mike Hinckley, Major League Pitcher

The dream of every ball player has come to pass for Mike Hinckley, as of today a pitcher with the Washington Nationals.

More details here.

Mike called me a couple of nights ago to pass on the good news, telling me in the process that his fastball has been clocked at 94 mph, and he's regularly at 92-93.

Now we can look forward to more "firsts" for Hinckley: first appearance, first win, first save, etc. We'll keep you posted on Mike's progress right here.

You DON'T Have To Cheat To Get Ahead - REALLY!

A lot has been written in recent months (myself included) about PEDs and cheating athletes, particularly MLB players. Yet we know, of course, that not everyone cheats.

So for a change, how about a story of a pro player who is doing things right? That he is an obscure minor leaguer at this point makes the story even better, in my mind. If anyone has some incentive to cheat, it's a minor league baseball player. But this story is about one guy who will never cheat.

The player? Mike Hinckley. I first learned of Mike in a book I read a few years ago, "License to Deal" by Jerry Crasnick, published in 2005. I originally wanted to read it because I know little about the agent and representative side of pro sports, baseball in particular. An interesting, entertaining read, by the way.

Hinckley, a 2001 third round draft pick of the Montreal Expos - now the Washington Nationals - chose one of the agencies covered in the book, Sosnick-Cobbe, to represent him. As it turns out, Mike is from Oklahoma, where I currently reside. Of course, I never expected to meet him.

Hinckley's career got off to a promising start, but I don't want to cover all of that in this article. You can read more on his pro career here. Let's just say that Hinckley went from being considered by Baseball America as the National's #1 minor league prospect in 2005 to being out of a job and struggling with arm problems by the time we met in 2007.

Mike found my web site and contacted me last September (2007) with two goals in mind: 1) To increase his throwing velocity, and 2) To get bigger and stronger.

For 4+ months, Mike followed the program I designed for him. He put on 23 lbs, increasing his weight from178 to 201 lbs. Training with weighted baseballs, his fastball increased from 87 to 91+ mph. Hinckley also worked diligently on his pitching mechanics under the watchful eye of his father, David Hinckley, the head baseball coach at Moore High School near OK City.

Over the course of the winter, Mike considered several offers, eventually re-signing with the Nationals and receiving an invitation to major league spring training. Rather than playing winter ball, as the Nationals suggested, Mike chose to stay home and work on his strength and conditioning in preparation for the upcoming season.

Given his struggles of the past few years, this was a very important decision for the young pitcher, and staying home and not playing turned out to be the right thing for him to do.

Mike performed well enough at spring camp to be assigned to the Nationals AA affiliate in Harrisburg, PA. After posting a 5-3 record there, he was promoted to their AAA team in Columbus, OH. Thus far, after 16 games, Hinckley has a sparkling 2.95 ERA as a LH relief specialist. Talk now is about his receiving a September call up to the Nationals. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

I especially like this comment from the National's GM, Jim Bowden, from the article referenced above:

"Since we've been here the last four years, (Hinckley) had no velocity, never got it to 90,"Bowden said. "And now he's consistently back there. So it's a funny game."

Well, yes, funny things do happen in baseball. But Hinckley's success thus far is the result of a good plan and a lot of hard work on his part - PEDS not required. This is the lesson for ball players at every level!

---

(C) 2008 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning - www.BaseballFit.com

Roger Clemens, Personal Trainer

This little item ranks pretty high on my list of bad ideas. According to the May 28, 2008 issue of USA TODAY, Roger Clemens is providing training and conditioning advice to NY Yankees pitcher Joba Chamberlain. Chamberlain says he’s taking pieces of Clemens’ workout routine and incorporating them.

One piece of advice Clemens gave him: “The easiest day should be the day you pitch.” Back when we all thought Clemens was a natural wonder, this was good advice. Now that it is abundantly clear that Clemens was a juicer, Chamberlain may well find himself in trouble if he follows Clemens’ training directions.

Why?

Because it was the juice that enabled Clemens to work out so hard and therefore perform at such a high level as long as he did. Take away the juice and Clemens achieves far less. All this talk of how it was Clemens’ (or any juicer’s) hard work and not the PEDs that is responsible for their success rings pretty hollow. A lot of players work hard, but by following the rules (and laws) they don’t enjoy the anti-catabolic benefits of PEDs like Clemens and others did.

Note to players who want to stay clean and perform at your highest: DO NOT take advice from known (or suspected) PED users. While on these drugs, you recover more quickly and effectively than those not cheating. It’s just like those ridiculous body-building magazines and their workouts. Among the real "secrets" is that the guy on the cover is using PEDS. If you follow the offerred training regimen, you will not get the same results because you’re not juicing.

So Roger, do Joba and ball players everywhere a favor and limit your advice to such things as how to throw a curve or how to pitch to Manny.

Jim Murray = Smoking Gun?

Unlesss you run your life like a CIA black-op, it's hard to keep secrets these days.

ESPN reported on its web site Sunday that Brian McNamee met with one of Roger Clemens' representatives in 2004 to discuss the implications of Major League Baseball instituting steroids testing for the first time. According to McNamee's attorney Earl Ward, McNamee met with Jim Murray for coffee not far from Clemens' apartment, where the former New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays trainer said he injected the 45-year-old Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone. The report indicates that Murray works for Clemens' agents Randy and Alan Hendricks.

I find this very believable. If I were in McNamee's position, I would certainly want to inform my client of potential problems with drugs in his system and upcoming testing. The fact that McNamee invoked Murray's name in the taped phone conversation aired by Clemens' advisors on January 7th further bolsters his claims.

Look, I'm no fan of either Clemens or Barry Bonds, and I think they both used PEDs. Yet Bud Selig, Donald Fehr, and MLB ownership clearly enabled and fostered a culture of cheating, and nothing of any consequence is happening to them. Players, "protected" by their union, are being dragged through the mud by the Mitchell Report. A few may face more serious charges that could land them in prison. 90 players, give or take, have been adversely affected by the Mitchell Report while not a single baseball executive is being held accountable for their role with PEDs.

In the meantime, Selig gets a contract extension.

If I were a player, this would strike me as a bit unfair. How long do you suppose they'll put up with this? Lance Berkman of the Houston Astros wants blood testing now. The rest of the players had better get a clue and demand immediate, meaningful change. The present system is not serving them well, while the rest of MLB seems to be enjoying themselves. Otherwise, it will be more of the same: management will continue to skate, and players will bear the brunt of the fallout from future investigations, as they did in 2005 and are doing now.

Mr. Pot, Say Hello to Mr. Kettle

Just how screwed up do you have to be when the group investigating you is infamously known for such things (naming just a few) as Abscam, the Keating Five, 8,331 bounced checks, embezzled House Post Office funds, and sex scandals with under-age staffers?

Such is the state of Major League Baseball these days.

Loser of the day? Miguel Tejada. Talk about a warning shot at the 5 players who will testify next month! You think Roger Clemens may have soiled himself when he got wind of that?

And who would have thought so many ball players required a drug ordinarily prescribed for attention deficit disorder in children? MLB approved medical exemptions for Ritalin for 28 players in 2006 and more than 100 in 2007. Just as we're coming to grips with physical performance enhancers, here come the "mental" enhancers.

The end is not in sight.

Bonds & Clemens: Future Cellmates?

So Congress has postponed their hearing into drug use in MLB until February 13th. Among those "invited" to appear are Brian McNamee, Kirk Radomski, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch and Roger Clemens. I'm guessing they will all appear, voluntarily or not. None of them will be offered immunity for their testimony, which is expected, of course, to be truthful.

This cannot be good for Clemens.

You've probably noticed that the guys who have admitted to using PEDs seem to be getting a pass (Giambi, Pettitte, et al), while the guys who are lying about it are getting hammered. Which is OK by me. To this point, these judgements have been made in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Due process and "innocent until proven guilty" don't apply, especially if you act guilty.

Assuming McNamee sticks to his story and Clemens to his, at least one of them will be lying. Will we see a second liar emerge?

Imagine this scenario:

Congressman: "Mr. Pettitte, did you ever see Roger Clemens use PEDs? Were you otherwise aware of his use of PEDs?"

Three possible responses:

1) If he truly didn't see or know of Clemens' drug use, he can say no and be off the hook.

2) If Pettitte was aware of Clemens' PED use, does he lie about it and say no, or does he give up his friend to keep his own hide safe from possible prosecution for perjury?

3) Or does he take the 5th - no answer? That effectively condemns Clemens, just not in so many words, and again saves Pettitte's skin, if not his reputation. Anything close to Mark McGwire's pathetic performance in the previous hearing will likewise brand Pettitte.

As long as there is no "smoking gun" out there, a la BALCO records or the like, Clemens may still escape. I'm betting that Clemens, Pettitte and their advisors have a conversation or two about all of this prior to February 13th.

But there is still McNamee's testimony to deal with. If it doesn't change, how does Congress handle this obvious discrepancy on live TV? Will someone be charged with perjury later on? Their last foray into MLB and drugs was widely considered to be a joke. Rafael Palmeiro obviously lied to them, and nothing came of it. The delay until February 13th tells me it may be different this time. Congress doesn't want to come across as a bunch of sycophants and poseurs as they previously did. After all, they have an election year image to maintain, and the public wants them to be tough on drugs, right?

So I expect (hope for?) tougher questioning. "No habla Ingles" won't cut it this time around.

Clemens needs to fire his current team of advisors and hire one with damage control expertise. We may not even be having this hearing but for his arrogance and obstinacy. If he would have offered even a weak defense, like Pettitte, much of this would have passed from the public's eye by now.

But Clemens' pride upped the ante, and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that he could go to jail, like Barry Bonds might be doing.

Not for using PEDs, but for lying about it.

Lidocaine + B12 = Flaxseed Oil

Taking yet another page from the Barry Bonds book of self-defense, Roger Clemens has introduced the equivalent of flaxseed oil, albeit with a bit more savvy than Bonds. Bonds claims he used something he thought was flaxseed oil, which turned out to be a steroid. So he's an addmitted user with "ignorance" as his defense. On the CBS show "60 Minutes," Clemens now says he was injected by his trainer, Brian McNamee, but it was with allowable substances, Lidocaine and Vitamin B 12 .

Clemens' defense is that his injections were of allowable substances and not performance enhancing drugs (PEDS). He has the further advantage, presumably, of no physical records or other hard evidence of PED use such as were available on Bonds through his BALCO association. But who knows what the future will reveal in this increasingly bizarre saga.

In a former career, I sold pharmaceuticals, including lidocaine. As a strength coach, I've spent many years in gyms, and I've known a lot of guys who have used all manner of PEDS. With this as background, a few questions come to mind:

1) Why is Clemens willing to talk on national TV to Mike Wallace, but not in private to George Mitchell?

2) I'm guessing Clemens' lawyers vetted the questions Wallace would ask before agreeing to the interview. Even the final video that CBS showed may have been edited. With this in mind, it's too bad that Wallace didn't explore this whole "injection" issue more. Steroids are typically injected in the buttocks area, intra-muscularly (IM). Lidocaine is usually applied topically or by sub-cutaneous (sub-q) injection, as dentists use it, for example.

The only use by an athlete for pain that I'm aware of would be by intra-articular injection (IA), or within the joint. This is a very different type of injection, more technique-sensitive and potentially dangerous, something that a skilled physician would perform - not a trainer.

3) McNamee has a Masters degree in Sports Science. Clemens' educational background is in, what? Just a guess here, but I'm willing to bet that McNamee knows more about drugs than Clemens. The fact that MLB players commonly use the term "B 12 shots" as a euphemism for steroids isn't particularly helpful to Clemens either.

And now we find that Clemens is finally suing McNamee for libel, after McNamee threatened to do the same. Clemens' attorneys are claiming that "McNamee made the allegations with actual malice, knowing they were false."

So who benefits from any of this? One name or the other may be cleared, but not both. I'm not a legal expert, but does this lawsuit prevent Clemens from saying anything substantive in front of Congress, should he decide to appear before them - the old, "I'm sorry, but I can't comment on that because of ongoing litigation I'm involved with?"

And now that the legal process is officially engaged, Clemens had better tread carefully. Bonds is in trouble not for his PED use, but lying about it. Interesting, isn't it, that law enforcement may end up doing more to rid MLB of PED use than MLB itself?

______________________________

(C) 2008 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning http://www.baseballfit.com/

Roger Clemens Records Strikeout # 4,763

Who's advising you, Roger?

With your announced investigation of the Mitchell Report, you've taken a page from the Barry Bonds camp for damage control: attack the messenger, a variety of defense known as "ad hominem circumstantial."

Like Bonds, Clemens appears to not want this to go to court on a straight-up basis of defamation of character. Bonds' attempt at this type of defense was to sue the authors of the damning book, "Game of Shadows," not because the authors defamed Bonds, but because Bonds didn't like the fact that they were profiting from his name. The suit died quickly and quietly.

Again I ask, who is advising you, Roger? George Mitchell is, amongst other things, a former federal judge. Just a guess here, but I'm thinking that everything Mitchell did was in keeping with the law and appropriate legal procedure, regardless of the constraints he was operating under. Surely your attorneys aren't smarter or better connected than Mitchell.

This particular action aligns you even more closely with Bonds, Mr. Clemens, and can only end badly for you. Strike one was having your attorney speak in your behalf when first accused. Strike two is your announced plan to "defend" yourself on "60 Minutes" rather than face Brian McNamee in public, under oath, to refute his charges. And this lame investigation of the Mitchell Report makes for strike three, thereby, in my mind, increasing your career total to 4,763.

What a mess you are making of this sad affair.
____________________________________

(C) 2007 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning http://www.baseballfit.com/

Roger Clemens & "Sixty Minutes"

Trainer Brian McNamee (via the Mitchell Report) names Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens, both former clients of his, as users of performance enhancing drugs. While disappointed, I was not surprised to hear Clemen's name invoked. Did we really think that Clemens could get better with age, drug-free, while condemning the more obvious cheater, Barry Bonds, who also improved as he aged?

Each of these player’s differing responses has been interesting. Pettitte confessed, saying he only used HGH twice in an effort to aid his recovery from an elbow injury. Clemens initially said nothing, relying on his lawyer to issue a statement denying the charges. A few days later, he issues his own video statement denying the charges. So let me see if I’ve got this straight – McNamee is lying about Clemens, but not Pettitte. Why would he do that?

Click here for the Clemens video. For a more humorous look at the Rocket’s career, click here.

And how's this for blowhard statement of the year:

“I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell’s report has raised many serious questions.”

Excuse me? Mr. Clemens, you've been making a living playing a child's game. It's not like you've been working in some 3rd-world country for the welfare of the underprivileged all these years. Your employment as a ball player doesn't provide you a free pass with public opinion. Why would it?

In my opinion, Clemens isn’t conducting himself like an innocent man. It seems that few of these guys do. They all start out denying the charges, then, too often, the story ends up differently. (See Rafael Palmeiro and Marion Jones, et al). Why did Clemens take days to deny the charges, and then, at first, only through his attorney? You’d have to think he was informed ahead of time of his being named in the Mitchell Report, so he would have had plenty of time to formulate a response. Then again, how much time does one require to mount a defense in a situation like this?

Baseball has made Clemens very rich. If there is no basis to McNamee’s charges, I assume there is nothing keeping him from using every resource at his disposal, including those legal, to clear his name.

I have not taken steriods, so, with the assumption that I have the money Clemens does, here's how I would have handled things: "Thank you for attending this press conference. I just want to take a minute to say I have never taken performance enhancing drugs. My attorneys will bring suit today against those making these charges, and I will do everything possible to clear my good name." Pretty simple, isn't it?

So Roger, drop the contrived show you’re preparing with “60 Minutes.” You want to really convince us of your innocence? Then testify under oath, perhaps before Congress, and tell us what you did and didn't do. If you want your legacy to survive this mess to any degree, don’t expect thinking people to buy into a staged performance with a TV talking head. It will do nothing for you.

------------------------------------
(C) 2007 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning http://www.baseballfit.com/

A Baseball Strength Coach’s Take on The Mitchell Report

I have been speaking out against performance enhancing drugs for years. With the release of the Mitchell Report, I find it necessary to say a few more things. First, I am not pleased that my profession is being dragged through the mud by guys like Brian McNamee and Greg Anderson. These two, and some others like them, cast a shadow over the rest of us who are training ball players the right way.

McNamee appears to have some educational credentials to be a personal trainer, although he is not a CSCS or ATC. Anderson, on the other hand, is nothing more than your garden variety muscle head. His main credential was "friend of Barry."

According to the Mitchell Report, when Anderson met with Giants officials, he identified himself as a "strength weightlifting guru'' and later provided a one-page document showing he had graduated from high school, with additional information "pending.''

The report further stated that Anderson's resume did not reveal, and Giants officials were unaware of, any education or expertise that Anderson might have that would qualify him to train a professional athlete.

Both the National Athletic Trainers' Association and National Strength & Conditioning Association released statements this past week to clarify their roles both in the training of athletes and opposition to the use of illegal, performance enhancing drugs. Individuals holding either of these credentials are expected to uphold these standards.

If you were to visit either of these organization's web sites, http://www.bocatc.org/ (athletic trainers) or http://www.nsca-cc.org/ (strength coaches) you will learn much about the stringent requirements for obtaining, and retaining, certification. Included are professional standards of conduct. You will not find authority for either of these legitimate health care professionals to dispense medications. More on this later.

It is well-established that ball players can enhance their on-field performance with appropriate conditioning and nutrition. Drugs are not required for one to make excellent progress. Yet even while taking banned substances, hard training is required. What these drugs do (steroids, HGH, and the like) is essentially speed up the physical development process, often taking the human body beyond the bounds nature intended. Injuries, including some referred to as "steroid injuries" often result. Drugs are a short-cut that also introduce negative health consequences, to say nothing of the legal and moral issues involved.

I listened to a radio interview of C.J. Nitkowsky, a former Nationals pitcher who had hired McNamee for training. He defended McNamee, saying he’s not the kind of guy to suggest performance-enhancing drug use to players. But, if a player were determined to use them, McNamee would advise them on their use so “they could do it right.” The interviewer asked Nitkowsky why McNamee didn’t refuse to work with clients who wanted such drugs. Nitkowsky’s reply was something about how working with a guy like Clemens is a big deal career-wise for a strength coach, and he couldn’t turn down an opportunity like that.

Well, he could have. He could have insisted that his clients sign something like the following:

“I hereby state that I will not take any substance that is illegal or banned by my sport’s governing body (such as Major League Baseball). Doing so will be grounds for immediate termination of my working, professional relationship with ___________.”

Too bad he didn’t – he might still find employment in the profession. The New York Daily News reported last May that Clemens had fired McNamee. I wonder what McNamee thinks about his career options now.

ESPN columnist Buster Olney wrote a scathing denunciation of the Mitchell Report (click here). He states, “The report is almost wholly absent of a direct examination and assessment of how the decisions of Don Fehr and Bud Selig led us to where we are today.”

Among the questions Olney asks:

· Why did baseball not act decisively after the sport's first steroid scandal, around Jose Canseco, during the 1988 World Series? Why did the owners and union leaders do nothing?· In a 1995 article in the Los Angeles Times, Selig made reference to a meeting in which owners discussed steroids. What was said, specifically, in those meetings? What were owners saying about the change in size in bodies?

· Why was it that when Kevin Towers spoke out loud in the spring of 2005 about how executives in the game had known for years about steroid use, he was admonished by baseball executives? Why did Selig issue a public gag order on executives on the issue of steroids? In fact, there is no mention of Towers' statement in the report.

· There is virtually no information within the report about the players' union deliberations and conversations about steroids during the mid-'90s. Where was Fehr? Where was Orza? What were they saying and doing?

· The commissioner had full autonomy over the minor leagues and could have implemented drug testing at any time. So why did it take 13 years after the Canseco scandal to do so?

Olney’s pointed remarks demonstrate the substantive holes in the Mitchell Report. As Thoreau once said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” I submit Olney is closer to the root than is Mitchell.

But really folks, what did we expect? Mitchell is an attorney, former politician, Red Sox board member, and “friend of Bud.” What we got was fairly predictable.

HGH For Injuries?

To those players, such as the Yankees’ Andy Pettitte, who claim their HGH use was about trying anything possible to aid their re-hab from injury, I ask, “Why didn’t you go to your team physician for your HGH?” It is clearly inappropriate professionally, as well as illegal, for a strength coach to dispense medication.

These guys all know this, of course. Injured MLB players, particularly front-liners like Pettitte, have access to the best medical care available. Yet he chose to obtain HGH from a guy like McNamee. Then, when his name is exposed, and ONLY then, Pettitte fesses up with his weak “injury recovery” defense.

Frauds Beget Frauds

Selig and Fehr are both equally culpable in this steroids/HGH mess. Why? Because if they REALLY wanted to stop drug abuse in it’s tracks – I mean RIGHT NOW – among the things they could do is simply require all professional players to submit one or more of the following: a urine, blood, or hair sample. Whatever the experts, like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), recommend. Click here for WADA’s take on the Mitchell Report.

These samples could be properly stored for as long as they are viable (2 years? 3 years?) with players submitting new ones as required by current, state-of-the-art drug detection methods and procedures. Later on, when a reliable HGH test is developed, these samples could then be tested by a competent independent agency NOT affiliated with MLB.

The key, of course, is that any player who subsequently tests positive receives, retroactively, the maximum penalty, along the lines of what Olympic cheats undergo. A two year banishment from their sport with all of their records and awards stripped from them. Players who are clean will have nothing to worry about.

Of course, MLB might just have some worries using this approach, what with the potential of having a few dozen of its star players out of commission for a couple of years, probably playing in some foreign league to keep their skills intact for their expected return to MLB. Sort of like what the NFL’s Ricky Williams did.

This is hardly the ideal solution, of course. Are there “right to privacy” issues under such a system? Yes. Olympic style testing has not eliminated cheating, but it has, unquestionably, reduced it. Imagine the Olympics using MLB’s lame testing system. Now imagine MLB using the Olympic testing model. Until MLB institutes something with real bite, it will be business as usual with the cheaters. Word is that Selig and Fehr will be meeting in early ’08 to discuss “improvements” to the current testing system. We shall see.

What’s strange about all of this is that the MLB player’s union appears to think it is somehow serving their players by being so intransigent on the matter of testing. I wonder what Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire think about how their union is working for them these days.

While the player’s union would be unlikely to go along with this approach (until forced to, by Congress?), Selig should be savvy enough to use that fact against the union. He could propose something like the above, and the minute the union opposes it, say, “See? We’re trying, but those guys are not cooperating!”

Such an approach can only increase pressure from the public and Congress on the union to make needed reforms – if that’s what’s really wanted. Selig’s failure to do something like this makes me question his motives. I heard Selig, on the radio, reply to a question about how the Mitchell Report might affect MLB. His reply was what I took as a dismissive comment about how this too, shall pass, and next year they’ll likely break the attendance records set this year.

If that’s the only point to MLB, making money, then Selig’s probably right. And if this is ownership's primary criteria in judging Selig's performance, we're in for more of the same, at least for the near term. Nothing substantive will change. MLB players will continue to produce inflated numbers, and its credibility will continue to suffer.

Many may ask, “What’s the big deal?” with all this attention to drugs and MLB. After all, it appears that no one much cares about the unnatural physical specimens routinely found on NFL playing fields. I say it’s a big deal for two reasons.

The first is because of the nature of the game of baseball. It is, essentially, a game of failure. It’s 9 players (defense, with the ball) against one (the batter). The team or player who fails the least generally wins. In what other sport will a success rate of only 30% qualify you for its Hall of Fame?

Because of this, baseball tracks its numbers carefully. With all of this “failure,” you’ve got to find something positive. So, as a baseball hitter, history tells us that failing 7 times out of 10 is actually a pretty good level of performance, and not many attain it. After all, we are told, hitting a 90 mph fastball is the single hardest thing to do in all of sports.

So baseball tracks its numbers, and these numbers are used to evaluate performance, more so than in any other sport. We fans ascribe a level of honor to the few players who attain certain standards. Standards that are perceived to be obtained naturally, not distorted by drug use. Even casual fans of baseball could probably tell me what some or all of the following numbers mean:

300 3,000 500 755 (admittedly, a number much in the news of late)

Still not sure about this? Then tell me - what are the equivalent numbers in football or basketball? What’s the NFL career record for rushing touchdowns? Who holds it? Same for basketball – who is the career NBA points leader? How many points did he score? It’s just not the same as with MLB’s numbers.

The second reason this matters is more obvious – it’s about enforcing rules. What’s the point of having rules if you’re going to look the other way when they’re broken? This only promotes more cheating, and certainly sends the wrong message to any player who aspires to become a big-leaguer some day. For the numbers to matter, and for the rules to matter, MLB has to do all that it can to foster a “level playing field” and those found to have violated the rules must be penalized in some meaningful way.

Time for An * ?

The well-intentioned, but essentially toothless Mitchell Report leaves some unresolved issues, not the least of which is, “What do we do about all of it?” My suggestion is this: an asterisk next to any player’s name who participated in what is considered to be “The Steroid Era.”

For baseball’s numbers to mean anything, some perspective has to be introduced. Without steroids, I highly doubt any player approaches 70 home runs in a season again. Alex Rodriguez, presumed to be un-enhanced by drugs, may break Barry Bond’s tainted career home run record, but he has never threatened the 70 in-a-season-mark, and probably never will.

So let the “records” stand, but with an asterisk. An asterisk perhaps penalizes innocent players, which is unfortunate, but it also introduces some perspective. This way, future generations can know more about how a bunch of guys distorted the record books with artificially inflated numbers of home runs hit, and how more players were able to perform at older ages than previously seen, enabling them to add to their career numbers and pad their bank accounts in the process.

Everyone will know why two particular guys had 70+ home run seasons, and it really wasn't because they were so much better than their peers.

With an asterisk next to their “records,” people can better understand how Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds improved their level of play as they got older, when such a thing had never happened before, in baseball or any other sport.

It could also make " clean" player's numbers that much more impressive - that they were accomplished during a time of rampant cheating. The problem, of course, is that we'll probably never know for sure who was clean and who wasn't, with a few obvious exceptions.

While there is evidence that drug use goes back to the 70s, I suggest an asterisk for the years 1988 (when Jose Canseco “came out” of the steroid closet) through at least 2007, or whenever MLB properly deals with the HGH issue. Until it does, pro baseball in this country has devolved into something akin to a goofy video game, with hulking super-heroes possessing amazing powers, performing incredible athletic feats mere mortals never could.

So ball players, coaches, and parents, don't let the few trainer "bad apples" spoil your view of the honorable professions of athletic training and strength & conditioning. Do your due diligence prior to selecting a professional to work with, and look for one in particular who is up-front about their opposition to the use of performance enhancing drugs.

-------------------------------
(C) 2007 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Short quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning http://www.baseballfit.com/