Ankiel linked to HGH investigation
September 7th, 2007
St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Rick Ankiel, who punctuated a storybook comeback from pitching travails by homering twice with 7 RBIs Thursday, joined the list of athletes linked to a Florida-based steroids investigation.
The New York Daily News reported Friday that Ankiel received a 12-month supply of human growth hormone in 2004 from a Florida pharmacy that was part of a national illegal prescription drug-distribution operation, citing records its reporters saw. That Orlando outfit, Signature Pharmacy, has been implicated in a steroids investigation run by Albany County (N.Y.) District Attorney P. David Soares, which has resulted in 22 indictments and several Florida clinic raids. …
Ankiel has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing, and stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005, The News reported.
Interesting how a lot of LaRussa players get caught with roids.
If something looks too good to be true, more often than not it is.
Am I correct in interpreting that if Ankiel gets accused of wrongdoing, it would be for illegally attaining the hGH via the “illegal prescription drug-distribution operation”, and NOT his use of it, since it was not an MLB banned substance at that time?
I can’t imagine that his use of hGH 3 years ago has any affect on his current performance. Not to mention the fact that it’s still unproven that hGH actually has any impact on an athlete’s on field performance.
http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/nav/tap1/
Wow, the drama for this guy never ends, does it?
Let’em play baseball! I really wish the guy the best. Like Stephen says, the HGH still can’t be in his system. This investigation is beginning to sound a little like a witch hunt.
I’m not a doctor, and I don’t play one on TV, but I think human growth hormones have a permanent effect on people. After all, HGH is given to children so they will grow at a normal rate; they don’t shrink after they stop taking them. HGH is also incredibly expensive.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that HGH has a legitimate medical role in rehabilitation and can be legally used if prescribed by a doctor.
Before anyone rushes to judgment, we should have all the facts.
There once was a Cardinal named Rick,
Who couldn’t throw a pitch worth a lick.
Of talent devoid,
He bought him some ‘roids,
And now he’s swinging a big stick.
Didn’t anyone read this? This is funny right there, I don’t care who you are.
I thought it was funny. Since the news broke tho it hasn’t been true.
Last night he had a meltdown in the field.
Could it be a guilty conscience? Or the pressure of a suspicious sportsworld?
Gave me a chuckle, Gordon. I’m just “delayed” in getting around the bloghorn. School - bleh!
Owen,
If nothing was wrong in using it, whey did he go outside the organization to acquire and use it? Why didn’t he just appreach the team doctor for it?
Lot’s of players are treated outside the auspices of the team physician. I am not defending Ankiel, I just get tired of the media, fans and politicians thinking they know everything based on sentence in one report. Due process is never given in these cases, people just assume them know facts based on a number of assumptions.
Craig says:
September 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
I’m not a doctor, and I don’t play one on TV, but I think human growth hormones have a permanent effect on people. After all, HGH is given to children so they will grow at a normal rate; they don’t shrink after they stop taking them. HGH is also incredibly expensive.
–After you stop growing do you shrink? HGH ensures a normal growth rate and when someone hits it they stop..Do these children become 7 feet tall with arms like tree trunks…Muscle growth is not the same as bone growth –
From today’s AP story regarding Ankiel’s meeting with MLB…
“I answered all their questions … and, absolutely, they were happy I was in full compliance,” Ankiel said, according to the Post-Dispatch. Ankiel has said he took what a doctor prescribed him while he was recovering from elbow surgery and declined to address the specifics of what he took, or comment on the validity of the report.
Just goes to show that we should wait until all the facts are in.
“I answered all their questions”
“declined to address the specifics of what he took”
Anyone else see a disconnect here?