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/

Ball Players & Creatine: Yes or No?

I recently received this question via email:

"Can/should athletes above the age of 16 safely use
Creatine supplements to enhance their workouts?"

They don't need to. Their body is naturally creating enough Creatine to serve them very well. I don't recommend the use of Creatine for anyone under the age of 25 or so. It is at approximately this age that endogenous Creatine levels begin to decline.

It's the same with testosterone and growth hormone. Teenagers have plenty of both hormones. Appropriate training, rest and nutrition will enable most any player to make excellent progress in their strength and conditioning without the use of any of these substances.

Creatine directly fuels the energy system used by ball players, so from a "scientific" standpoint, it can help. But younger players already have sufficient natural stores of this compound in their body, and cramming more in won't help. It could hurt.

For the record, I am not opposed to the judicious use of Creatine for older ball players and people in general. Our natural production of this nutrient declines with age, so reasonable supplementation can be a great benefit to this population. I'm 51, and take 5 gms/day. It makes a noticeable difference in my energy level in general, and weight workouts in particular.

Regards,
Steve

(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

Sore Arms: What You Need To Know*

“My son/daughter has a sore (elbow or shoulder).
What’s the best way to handle this?”

With more games being played, due, at least in part, to the expansion of travel ball and fall leagues, arm problems for young ball players are becoming more prevalent. According to Dr. Glenn Fleisig of the American Sports Medicine Institute (www.ASMI.org) there are two major “thresholds” where he sees more arm problems:

• With pitchers who play for 8 months per year, or more

• With pitchers throwing 85 mph or harder

Major League Baseball starts in mid-February (pitchers), and, except for teams in the playoffs, ends by October. A total of about 6 months. A LOT of games in those months, but a lot of downtime thereafter.

Are the number of games your kids are playing approaching that of these highly skilled, physically mature adults?

As for throwing 85+ mph, well, of course, we want pitchers to throw this hard, and harder. At this level of velocity, however, the structures of the arm undergo greater forces and stress. If not properly cared for, problems are inevitable.

There are three primary causes of arm pain/problems:

1) Overuse – too many practice sessions and games, too many innings pitched. All of which adds up to insufficient recovery time.

2) Improper mechanics - Overhand throwing is a bio-mechanically un-natural act, even when done with what are considered to be good mechanics. When things are not being done properly, problems increase dramatically.

3) Poor conditioning - Proper strength and flexibility work can help prevent arm problems by “toughening” the ligaments, tendons, and muscles thereby making them more injury resistant. Ultimately, though, excessive and incorrect use will overwhelm even the best conditioned arm.

Arm Injuries

There are a number of maladies that can afflict overhand throwers, especially pitchers. Listed here are several of the more common ones that many ball players will experience during the course of their career. For some good pictures of each of these conditions, go to: http://www.BaseballFit.com/sore-arm.htm

Bursitis - Bursae (plural; singular is bursa) are fluid-filled sacs that cushion areas of friction between tendon and bone or skin. Bursitis is the inflammation of one or more bursa.

Tendinopathy - Any disease or dysfunction of a tendon. Refers to two conditions that can occur together: tendon inflammation, known as tendinitis, and tiny tears in the connective tissue in or around the tendon, known as tendinosis.

Tendinitis – inflammation of a tendon. The white areas on each end of the muscle are its tendons, which connect muscle to bone. Considered to be a rare condition. [1]

Tendinosis – a more serious condition characterized by degeneration (not inflammation) of the collagen fibers in the tendon due to excessive wear and tear. More common, and more difficult to treat, than tendinitis.

Comparing Tendinosis To Tendinitis

Tendinosis Very Common	Tendinitis Very Rare
Takes longer to heal - months/years	Quick to heal - 14 days or less
Treated with therapeutic exercise	Aggravated by exercise
Irritated by NSAIDs	Helped by NSAIDs
Shows up black on a MRI (T1)	Shows up white on an MRI
Degenerative	Inflammatory
Usually feels better after proper training	Hurts to move at all
Responds well to electric stimulation and heat	Irritated by heat
Irritated by ice	Responds well to ice

Impingement Syndrome - the diagnosis given for shoulder pain that is the result of tissues that get "pinched" or "impinged." This pinching occurs when the shoulder joint no longer stays centered in the socket as the arm is raised, as in the overhead throwing motion of a baseball or softball player. Can be caused by imbalances of strength and flexibility between various muscles in the shoulder.

Medial epicondylitis – also known as pitcher’s elbow, golfer's elbow, and tennis elbow. Caused by damage to the tendons that bend the wrist toward the palm (flexion). The most common symptom of ME is pain along the palm side of the forearm, from the elbow to the wrist, on the same side as the little finger.

Can be caused by inflammation from too much repetitive activity, like throwing, or from a breakdown of tendon fibers known as tendonosis (see above).

Pain vs. Soreness

When is pain serious? When you can no longer perform your normal activity - like throwing - and/or the pain causes you to adjust from your normal mechanics to compensate for the pain.

Post-activity pain, such as that which is ordinarily felt after training or competition, should dissipate within 24-48 hours. Pain persisting beyond this time should be referred to appropriate medical authority. At this point, trying to "tough it out" can lead to more serious injury.

Basic Recovery Regimen

When arm problems occur, this is the course that will likely have to be followed:

1) Stop any activity causing pain. Recovery time will vary; can take weeks to months.

2) When pain is gone, begin appropriate strength and conditioning work to re-hab the structures involved.

3) After a minimum of 6-8 weeks of S & C work, begin activity (throwing) again.

There are NO shortcuts through this process. It is better to err on the side of extra recovery time rather than rushing back prematurely and risking re-injury. The good news is that appropriate strength and conditioning can help ball players to both prevent as well as recover from most throwing injuries.

1. Khan KM, Cook JL, Taunton JE, Bonar F. Overuse tendinosis, not tendonitis. The Physician & Sports Medicine 2000;28(5):38-48.

*This report is not intended to diagnose or treat a medical condition. It is presented for informational purposes only. If you are experiencing arm pain/problems, seek the advice of appropriate medical authority.

---

(C) 2007 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

Review of the 2007 College World Series

PART FIRST

To me, college baseball is the best thing the sport of baseball has going right now. MLB has become a farce, and I have nothing against youth, high school, or international baseball (which I think has great promise). They're all great. I just think college baseball is the best game in town. And I'm sure many of you could make solid arguments against this premise of mine.

Yet on 6/25/07 at 6:30 PM CST, when I happened to visit ESPN.com's home page doing some research for this report, there was NOTHING to be found on the College World Series. Hardly 24 hours had passed since the Oregon State Beaver's completed their second straight conquest of the University of North Carolina.

As I scrolled down the page, carefully examining the various sports news offerings, I found links for college football and college basketball. One sport completed its season 3 months ago, with the other due to begin two months hence. But nothing about an event covered by ESPN TV itself, presumably a fairly prominent story, barely a day old.

I'm sure I don't know much about how the world really works. So forgive me for finding it hard to believe that the interest level in college basketball at this time of year is such that it requires several links on a major sports news venue, while college baseball doesn't rate even one, in the midst of baseball season. Go figure.

PART SECOND

So, in case you hadn't heard, Oregon State has just won their 2^nd consecutive College World Series. I have to admit that this is pretty impressive and amazing to me. Last year, I considered them an anomaly. Now they've accomplished something that has been done only 4 times previously in the 60 year history of the CWS: winning back-to-back titles.

In 2006, everything was in perfect alignment for them – the planets, the stars, the players and coaches, even their competition. This was OSU’s moment, and we would never hear much from that program again. I predicted to a few people that they would never again qualify for a college world series, let alone win another one. Certainly not in 2007, which appeared to be a re-building year for the Beavers. Order and tradition would once again prevail in college baseball.

I could not have been more wrong. Overcoming some serious mid-season adversity, OSU responded like warriors and champions, finishing off the formidable University of North Carolina – a basketball school, fer cryin’ out loud, in two straight games. What's next - the University of Indiana as the 2008 CWS champ? (No offense, IU fans!)

Here’s my quick take on the eight CWS teams:

· Arizona State – traditional baseball power, Pac 10 team

· CS Fullerton – traditional baseball power, California-based team

· UC Irvine – good baseball school, first CWS appearance, California based

· Mississippi State – traditional baseball power, from SEC, arguably the best baseball conference in the country

· U of Louisville – a football/basketball school, first CWS appearance. Not a baseball power; had a heck of season. After watching them destroy Oklahoma State in their Super-Regional, they were my “dark horse” team to win it all

· Rice University – traditional power, Texas based school

So the usual baseball power-house areas (AZ, CA and TX) and conferences (Pac 10 and SEC) were all represented. No big surprise.

But for the past two years now we've had two teams playing for the CWS title with the following line ups:

1) OSU had one starter from Northern CA. The rest were from the states of Oregon and Washington.

2) North Carolina, the basketball powerhouse, had a starting lineup composed of all North Carolina natives! No one from TX or Florida, states they are relatively close to.

I know nothing about the recruiting practices of either of these teams. I don’t know what priority they place on seeking players from the traditional power, warm-weather states. But two things are obvious – they place a great deal of emphasis on getting local players, and once they get them, they do an impressive job of developing their skills further. Pat Casey and Mike Fox can flat-out coach.

One (or both?) of them should be coach of the year. Last year it was Casey; maybe this will be Fox's year.

Note to players (and parents): regardless of where you live, if either of these two schools contacts you about playing for them, listen very carefully to what they have to say

The world, sports and baseball included, is changing, isn’t it? First, a minority rises to the top of professional golf. Now the seats of amateur baseball power appear to lie not in the deep south or on the west coast, but in both the Pacific Northwest and the state of North Carolina. What’s next – a white guy as the #1 selling rap musician?

---

(C) 2007 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

Has The Time Come For A MLB Combine?

Imagine you’re a baseball GM. Albert Pujols and Babe Ruth are available. Which of these two do you pick to build your team around?

It is interesting to me how the various professional leagues go about evaluating prospects for their draft days. Perhaps there is something for baseball, and MLB in particular, to learn from the NFL and their scouting combine approach.

Given the expense associated with the high “washout” rate for baseball draftees (above 50%) you’d think MLB would be interested in improving what is essentially a "crap shoot" of a system.

The NFL scouting combine has grown in scope and significance from its early days, allowing personnel directors to evaluate upcoming prospects in a standardized setting. Its origins have evolved from the National, Blesto and Quadra Scouting services in 1977, to the media frenzy it has become today.

In 1985 all 28 NFL teams decided they would participate in future National Invitational Camps with the goal of sharing costs for the medical examinations of draft eligible players. They also use this setting to evaluate prospects in a variety of tests, which include the following:

• 40 yard dash

• Bench press

• Vertical jump

• Broad jump (standing long jump)

• 20-yard shuttle

• three-cone drill

• 60-yard shuttle

• Position-specific drills

• Interviews

• Physical measurements

• Injury evaluation

• Drug screen

• The Cybex test

• The Wonderlic Test

Approximately 335 total athletes are selected to attend each year, by invitation only. Participants are determined annually by a Selection Committee. The directors of both National and BLESTO scouting services are joined by members of various NFL player personnel departments to form the committee.

The participating NFL executives can rotate on a yearly basis, and remain anonymous. ALL eligible players are reviewed and voted on by the committee members. Each athlete receiving the necessary number of votes, by position, is then extended an invitation.

The closest MLB has come to this "combine" concept occurred almost 100 years ago. In 1921, Popular Science Monthly published the results of a study they performed on Babe Ruth.

According to Marcus Elliot, MD of the Peak Performance Project in Santa Barbara, CA:

“… the Babe Ruth testing was more appropriate and more intensive than anything any professional team is doing now.”

As reported in the September 2006 issue of GQ, these experiments were replicated on the St. Louis Cardinals’ Albert Pujols. The results are very interesting.

These are the original tests the Babe went through, which Pujols performed at Washington University in St. Louis in the spring of 2006:

· Bat speed: Swinging a 54 oz bat, the Babe clocked in at 75 mph. Pujols, swinging a 31.5 oz bat, was at 86.99 mph.

· Letter cross-out: Pujols was given a sheet of jumbled text and told to cross out all the A’s as rapidly as possible. According to the author, the test was not “well normed” in Ruth’s day, making comparison’s with Pujols impossible. Pujols’ results indicated he possessed “extraordinary binocularity,” a key visual attribute for hitters.

· Pegboard: This test assesses fine motor control and speed. It involves inserting as quickly as possible 25 steel pegs into holes punched in a plain metal box. Ruth’s score was off the charts; Pujols’ was considered high average.

· Digit/symbol substitution: Involves converting weird symbols into numbers, as many as possible in one minute. Both Ruth & Pujols made average scores. On a separate part of the test, in which one simply copies the symbols, Pujols score was off the charts.

· Finger tapping: with your dominant index finger, you depress a tapper as many times as possible in 10 seconds. Both Ruth and Pujols scored in the 99th percentile.

There is a lot of valuable testing being done by various experts that is largely ignored by MLB. Still, might we someday see a MLB combine, similar to the NFL’s, which measures attributes such as the above? Surely it would benefit pro and college baseball to have a standardized setting in which medical and performance evaluations can be made.

Why might this not happen? Well, for one thing, it would take a good pile of $$. Yet to me, this concept appears to be a business waiting to happen. Top players could be invited, as with the NFL combine. They could choose to participate or not. When a particular player declines to participate, another can be selected. This would likely give players an opportunity to be "discovered" that they might not otherwise have.

Regardless, the structure would be fairly easy to develop. MLB and maybe the NCAA could assume the costs of the operation; participants could pay a modest fee. Or, the creators of the combine would collect their data and charge MLB and college teams for access to it.

Medical and relevant performance tests for ball players would be administered, just like the NFL combine. The baseball combine could continue to monitor the careers of participants, which would help determine the reliability and predictive value of the data collected.

Here’s my suggested list of what a MLB Combine might use in their player evaluations. I’m sure there are other useful tests that could be included:

• Most/all of the above Ruth/Pujols tests

• A test that measures emotional maturity

• Running speed, straight-line and on the base paths

• Throwing velocity, all positions

• Bat speed for all hitters

• Agility and quickness tests for IF and OF

• Visual acuity/depth perception

• Tests to measure body-core strength

• A drug screen

Can a greater number of prospects be identified this way, with more objective testing? Of course. This doesn’t mean that scouts are no longer needed. With the above information, scouts could have more objective tools at their disposal for player evaluation.

Developing a data base of norms for these tests could usher in Money Ball, Part 2. Each team would define the attributes most important to them, much as they do now, and select prospects accordingly

In any case, it would appear that you would do well in choosing either Pujols or Ruth!

________________________________________________________________________________________________

(C) 2007 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning - www.BaseballFit.com

The information contained herein is the opinion of the author based on his personal observations and years of experience. Neither Steve Zawrotny or Baseball Fit assume any liability whatsoever for the use of or inability to use any or all of the information presented on this website.

Why MLB Is Reluctant To Change

A question I occasionally hear is “If weighted baseball training is such a good idea, why aren’t more players and teams using this type of training? Why isn't professional baseball?” Well, I hear from pro ball players all the time that more players and teams ARE using weighted baseballs as part of their training. The process is slow, but progress is being made. At the NCAA D-1and other college divisions, they are more widely used.

Of the four major league sports, baseball is the slowest to adopt new methods in any aspect of the game. For evidence, read “Money Ball,” a book that has been largely ignored by MLB. This aversion to change is widely acknowledged. But why is this so? Here's my theory.

I’ll start by saying it has little to do with tradition. MLB will change its policies/procedures in a NY minute if it can make more money in the process.

It has everything to do with the people who run the system. MLB is the ultimate “good ol’ boys” club. While this may seem obvious, there are some deeper issues at work. To illustrate, let’s compare MLB with the NBA and the NFL.

Every player that enters the NBA and NFL has anywhere from 2-4 years of college education. In recent years, the NBA has been drafting more high school players, but these are a distinct minority. How diligent athletes are in becoming educated is perhaps debatable, but recent NCAA D-1 statistics indicate a graduation rate of 62% for all athletes vs. a 60% rate for non-athletes. The NFL, of course, does not draft high school players.

In the early years of the MLB draft, more high school than college players were selected. In recent decades, opportunities to attend college have greatly expanded, with more players going the college route. Therefore, more college players are being drafted (for several reasons). The number of high school players drafted now comprises about 30-35% of the total.

Question: Where do the coaches, managers, and executives who run professional sports come from? Overwhelmingly, from the ranks of former players. Money Ball notwithstanding, few decision makers in MLB are outsiders.

So what might we learn from all of this?

That the pool from which the future leaders and decision makers in MLB are coming from is not particularly well educated! These guys have not been much exposed to “higher order” thinking or the scientific process (as opposed to most every NBA and NFL player and coach).

If you want to be a head coach at most any level of college sports, a degree is required, often an advanced degree. It is not unusual for college head coaches to hold Master's and Doctoral degrees. You occasionally hear the TV talking heads discuss a college coach's educational background. When was the last time you heard a discussion on some MLB manager's academic achievements?

So, like all of us, baseball coaches and managers teach what they know. And, like most of us, they are slow to change their ways. Perhaps this will change as the trend of drafting more college baseball players continues.

Don’t misinterpret what I am saying. This is not about educational elitism. I’ve encountered enough “degreed” dimwits over the years to know that formal education has its limitations.

But you can’t teach what you don’t know. So, if

• Your educational background is limited, and

• You’re not really into SELF-education, and

• You don’t have the background to properly interpret scientific
  data,

and

• You have poor communication skills

Then you’re more likely to be suspicious of new ideas and techniques, and reluctant to adopt them, regardless of all the positive evidence that may exist for an idea. Such a person may also have limited teaching skills as well, further hampering the process of transferring new concepts.

So what we have with MLB is an entrenched, self-perpetuating mindset that is not particularly open to new ideas, unless there is obvious financial benefit.

Keep all of this in mind the next time you hear the question, “If (insert new idea here) is such a good idea, why isn’t professional baseball doing it?” Most certainly, DO NOT judge the value of an idea based on MLB’s view of it. Do your own independent research instead. You’ll be better served.

IMPORTANT DEFINITION:

Arm STRENGTH: A euphemism that denotes how hard a player throws, or how good his/her arm is. For baseball and softball skill evaluation purposes, it has nothing to do with muscle strength.

---

(C) 2006 Baseball Fit, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Steve Zawrotny's BASEBALL FIT Hitting & Pitching Conditioning - www.BaseballFit.com

The information contained herein is the opinion of the author based on his personal observations and years of experience. Neither Steve Zawrotny or Baseball Fit assume any liability whatsoever for the use of or inability to use any or all of the information presented on this website.

Random Thoughts & News Items...

1) Two more prominent coaches who are users and promoters of weighted baseball training are Jerry Weinstein of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (CA) and Fred Corral of the University of Oklahoma.

Both teams regularly appear in Top 25 rankings.

2) Dick Mills has published "The Science And Art Of Baseball Pitching." Back in January, Tom House published a book, "The Art and Science of Pitching." I'’m confident it has nothing to do with horseshoes. House's tome has endorsements from several prominent people, and House himself is a PhD (in psychology). He's also a proponent of weighted ball training. Mills has no credentials of any kind with which to write a book claiming to be scientific, but he appears to have teamed up with a co-author who does. Mills'’ book costs $97, House's $19.95. Whose version of "“Art"” and "“Science"” will you be using?

3) Question: Since Pop Warner (youth) football quarterbacks throw footballs that weigh 10 oz, where are all the injured young QBs? Girl's softball uses a 6.5 oz ball. Where are all the damaged softball arms? Are we to believe that large, physically mature and highly conditioned major league pitchers somehow are incapable of training with a 6 oz baseball? While a college or NFL QB may throw only 30-40 passes in a game, they are throwing a 15 oz football. During the week in practice, they are making many additional throws.

The mechanics of these various overhand throws, while not exact, are similar. So where are all of the damaged high school, college and pro football quarterbacks? The fear-mongering over training with weighted baseballs and softballs is absolutely ridiculous and not founded on anything scientific. On the other hand, there is solid clinical research backing their safe and effective use, to say nothing of the empirical evidence of the tens of thousands of ball players who are enjoying the benefits of training with them.

4) Next, an answer to yet another lame question from "“the pitching guru."” As usual, he's slamming the ideas of another respected coach. Yet, if you want the guru'’s version of the "“truth," it will set you back $97.

So here'’s the guru'’s question: "... There is a huge problem when you follow the advice of a coach or a pitching instructor who uses experience as his teacher. The question is - where is the scientific evidence that what you recommend is valid?"”

Is he serious?

Must we have "scientific evidence” before we do anything on the ball field? How about asking questions like:

• What are his/her playing and coaching experience and other professional qualifications?

• Is s/he qualified to offer the advice?

• What have been the results of his/her advice?

• Have his/her players prospered under this direction, or have too many of them suffered poor results?

• Can you speak with a current or former student as a reference?

These are among the questions that should be asked and answered of coaches and instructors, not some nebulous requirement for "scientific evidence"” for their methods. If you don't like the answers you get to these questions, find another coach/instructor. The PROOF of any coach's methods are their RESULTS. While it would be nice to have more scientific evidence relating to baseball training, it just doesn'’t exist, and probably never will.

5) "“Juicer"” or "“Non Juicer?"” A book to be released on 23 March, "“Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports" by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, promises documented facts on Bonds'’ steroid and related drug use. If you haven't seen them, these pictures of Bonds are interesting:

http://www.BaseballFit.com/barry_bonds.htm

Notice his huge melon of a head - it may may be the result of growth hormone use.

And don'’t buy any malarkey statements that Bonds or any other suspected user may offer about "never failing a drug test"” or "I've never tested positive." Just as there is a huge industry for performance enhancing drugs, there is equivalent demand for agents that mask the presence of these drugs. "I'’ve never tested positive"” is not the same thing as "“I'’ve never used drugs."”

I'’m told by a world renowned expert in these matters that 37 new anabolic steroids are now entering the market, and there are NO means of testing for them. Same with Human Growth Hormone, Bonds' purported favorite drug of use. And new, undetectable stimulants are already being used to replace amphetamines (greenies). So, between these new drugs, masking agents, and inadequate testing methods, the cheating will continue.

6) Update on those deluded ball players using an "unscientific" long toss program at Russell County High in Seale, AL. Their top pitcher, Kasey Kiker, is a pre-season high school All-American. In his first start this season, the first pitch he threw registered 98 mph. He stayed in the 95-97 range until leaving the game in the 5th inning, which turned out to be a loss. Seems to me they know what they're doing out there in Seale.

7) We've all heard of wood bats that break. How about metal bats that break? In North Dakota, the high school baseball governing body recently voted to use only wood or composite bats during their regular season. Apparently, metal bats shatter and break at temperatures under 50 degrees. Most of us wouldn't know this, as we don't play or practice at such extreme temps. So switching to wood/composite turns out to be a cost cutting measure for teams in the frigid north!