PDA

View Full Version : Marlon Byrd suspended for PED use



jojo
06-25-2012, 06:25 PM
Byrd has been suspended 50 games for use of Tamoxifen (http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8095053/outfielder-marlon-byrd-tests-positive-peds-gets-suspension), an estrogen receptor inhibitor best known for treating estrogen-dependent breast cancers but often abused by weight lifters in order to manage steroid levels.

Dave Cameron suggests it didn't help Byrd much and this may lead to controversy (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/marlon-byrd-an-example-of-peds-not-being-a-miracle-cure/) as DC suggests Byrd may choose to go down fighting.


Those donít sound like words that come from a guy who is just going to take his suspension and go quietly into the night. If you like public spatting about drug testing, grab some popcorn, because Iíd imagine youíre probably in for a show.

Nathan
06-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Hanging around Conte and BALCO probably won't do his public perception much good, either. If he was innocent, then he should have been much, much, much more careful with what he put in his body.

Oops.

hebroncougar
06-25-2012, 08:59 PM
These excuses these losers come up are comical.

jojo
06-25-2012, 09:27 PM
These excuses these losers come up are comical.

What excuse has Byrd given?

edabbs44
06-25-2012, 10:22 PM
What excuse has Byrd given?

Byrd denied that he used Tamoxifen for performance-enhancing purposes, however. In a statement released by the MLB Players Association, Byrd claimed that, several years ago, he underwent surgery to fix a condition "private and unrelated to baseball." When the unnamed condition relapsed over the winter, Byrd said, he began taking Tamoxifen.

"I made an inexcusable mistake," Byrd said in the statement. "Although that medication is on the banned list, I absolutely did not use it for performance enhancement reasons.

"I am mortified by my carelessness and I apologize to everyone who loves this game as I do. I will serve my suspension, continue to work hard and hope that I am given an opportunity to help a club win later this season."

Nathan
06-26-2012, 12:17 AM
A few random thoughts on this matter.

1.) If he was innocent, and it was taken for a medical issue, why didn't he apply for a waiver with MLB?

2.) Looking up on wikipedia, the main reason that it's prescribed in the first place is for breast cancer. (It can be prescribed for bi-polar, but, well.. yeah, I'm sure there's better medication out there for it.)

hebroncougar
06-26-2012, 12:22 AM
He's right, he didn't use IT for performance enhancement, he used it to mask his steroids levels. That, or he's got a case of breath cancer he's hiding.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

jojo
06-26-2012, 12:42 AM
While rare, men can get breast cancer and it's a bad thing because no one is looking for it, its not found until it's too late.

Much more common, however, is gynecomastia. Anti-estrogens are valid treatment for this condition in men.

I'm not saying that is why he took Tamoxifen, but it certainly is possible.

Chip R
06-26-2012, 12:46 AM
Byrd denied that he used Tamoxifen for performance-enhancing purposes, however. In a statement released by the MLB Players Association, Byrd claimed that, several years ago, he underwent surgery to fix a condition "private and unrelated to baseball." When the unnamed condition relapsed over the winter, Byrd said, he began taking Tamoxifen.

Perhaps he got the same surgery as Dr. Richard Raskind. ;)

hebroncougar
06-26-2012, 08:04 AM
While rare, men can get breast cancer and it's a bad thing because no one is looking for it, its not found until it's too late.

Much more common, however, is gynecomastia. Anti-estrogens are valid treatment for this condition in men.

I'm not saying that is why he took Tamoxifen, but it certainly is possible.

Gynecomestia almost always occurs at the onset of puberty in genuine cases. Aren't man boobs a side effect of steroids as well? Wow, what a coincidence....

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

RedFanAlways1966
06-26-2012, 08:18 AM
While rare, men can get breast cancer and it's a bad thing because no one is looking for it, its not found until it's too late.

Much more common, however, is gynecomastia. Anti-estrogens are valid treatment for this condition in men.

I'm not saying that is why he took Tamoxifen, but it certainly is possible.

What we have here is a dying breed, folks. A person who vehemently refuses to believe anyone in professional sports (namely MLB on this site) takes or has taken PEDs. Even when they fail a test, this dying breed will still take the side of innocence. Might be breast cancer. Sure there is a very slim possibility that Byrd has breat cancer or Manny Ramirez wants kids. There is also a very good chance that these test-failers are trying to get an edge and are cheating the game we love.

I tend to lean toward Jose Canseco more than the dying breed. Common sense makes me feel that way.

jojo
06-26-2012, 08:25 AM
What we have here is a dying breed, folks. A person who vehemently refuses to believe anyone in professional sports (namely MLB on this site) takes or has taken PEDs. Even when they fail a test, this dying breed will still take the side of innocence. Might be breast cancer. Sure there is a very slim possibility that Byrd has breat cancer or Manny Ramirez wants kids. There is also a very good chance that these test-failers are trying to get an edge and are cheating the game we love.

I tend to lean toward Jose Canseco more than the dying breed. Common sense makes me feel that way.

Please stop it already. That in no way accurately sums the many posts I've penned on this issue.

oneupper
06-26-2012, 08:31 AM
What we have here is a dying breed, folks. A person who vehemently refuses to believe anyone in professional sports (namely MLB on this site) takes or has taken PEDs. Even when they fail a test, this dying breed will still take the side of innocence. Might be breast cancer. Sure there is a very slim possibility that Byrd has breat cancer or Manny Ramirez wants kids. There is also a very good chance that these test-failers are trying to get an edge and are cheating the game we love.

I tend to lean toward Jose Canseco more than the dying breed. Common sense makes me feel that way.

Don't take this to a personal level, please. Qualify the argument, if you will, but not the poster.

RedFanAlways1966
06-26-2012, 08:32 AM
Please stop it already. That in no way accurately sums the many posts I've penned on this issue.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. IMO you are a very knowledgable baseball person. I am disgusted by PEDs in baseball. I feel no sympathy towards those who fail... whether by choice or by some "innocent" (stupid) mistake. You consistently take the other side. That is fine as this board is driven by opinion. However, I will take the other side on this argument and express disdain for those who take the other side (esp. when someone fails). If Byrd has breast cancer or gynecomastia (as you have stated can be a possibilty), then I will apolgize. Otherwise I will argue against you or any others that are in the defend-the-player category.

jojo
06-26-2012, 08:50 AM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. IMO you are a very knowledgable baseball person. I am disgusted by PEDs in baseball. I feel no sympathy towards those who fail... whether by choice or by some "innocent" (stupid) mistake. You consistently take the other side. That is fine as this board is driven by opinion. However, I will take the other side on this argument and express disdain for those who take the other side (esp. when someone fails). If Byrd has breast cancer or gynecomastia (as you have stated can be a possibilty), then I will apolgize. Otherwise I will argue against you or any others that are in the defend-the-player category.

Let's be fair here. I'm in in the category of "PED use was so rampant in the PED era that it's frivolity to slice and dice the record to "purify" it. It's silly to argue player A shouldnt be in the HOF but player B should be using PEDs as an underlying premise. In short, we dont know who was clean and who wasn't and we shouldn't act like we do. Im not that worried about what stain chemical cheating had on the fabric of a game whose history suggests cheating has always been part of the game.

Im not a defend-the-player guy. I'm an anti-rewriting history guy who views the moral outrage often directed at PEDs and the often rampant supposition with little actual fact more disturbing than knowing the Bonds' of baseball had better science than the Aarons' of baseball.

bucksfan2
06-26-2012, 09:29 AM
I thought about Byrd yesterday and wondered if the Reds may take a flier in picking him up off of waivers or signing him if he cleared waivers. I googled his hame and found an article posted 7 minutes ago that said he got popped for PED's. Kinda a woha moment for me.

jojo
06-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Gynecomestia almost always occurs at the onset of puberty in genuine cases.

Unfortunately this is not accurate.

hebroncougar
06-26-2012, 10:32 AM
Unfortunately this is not accurate.

You're right, it's just the most common cause. Oh, and again, taking steroids causes it. Not that a modern baseball player would want to hide the fact that they do that. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not "accurate". Maybe Byrd can get tested for roids, come up positive, and claim the sample was mistreated too. That'll clear him in some people's minds too.

Or heck, maybe Byrd is bipolar and suddenly needed tamoxifen for that(of course if he was taking it legally, he could get a medical exemption). Or heck, maybe he's really a woman and is infertile, it can be taken for that as well.

Or maybe it's the most logical explanation at this point.

jojo
06-26-2012, 10:47 AM
You're right, it's just the most common cause. Oh, and again, taking steroids causes it. Not that a modern baseball player would want to hide the fact that they do that. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not "accurate".

The statement that "Gynecomestia almost always occurs at the onset of puberty in genuine cases" is innaccurate and the veracity of the statement has nothing to do with one's stance on PEDs.

Again, the moral outrage is a little bit over the top. The steroid era wasn't the first period in baseball history where players looked for ways to get an advantage that would be considered unsportsmanlike by an average person. In fact, i'm still searching for an era that was pure. I guess, I don't get the passionate defense of a version of the game that likely never existed. I certainly think the supposition about players that so many so casually throw out to the far corners of the interweb is distasteful (especially considering the ones who seem to do it the loudest are the ones decrying steroids because they muddy the truth in counting stats). My default on PEDs is first, meh and second, owing a positive test like Byrd's, is it really fair to accuse or exhonerate with such certainty? And for the record, who heard about Byrd's suspension and shouted, "I knew it!". We really don't know. Nonetheless, don't direct your vitriole at me. I just disagree that PEDs destroyed tha fabric of professional baseball.

traderumor
06-26-2012, 10:55 AM
Let's be fair here. I'm in in the category of "PED use was so rampant in the PED era that it's frivolity to slice and dice the record to "purify" it. It's silly to argue player A shouldnt be in the HOF but player B should be using PEDs as an underlying premise. In short, we dont know who was clean and who wasn't and we shouldn't act like we do. Im not that worried about what stain chemical cheating had on the fabric of a game whose history suggests cheating has always been part of the game.

Im not a defend-the-player guy. I'm an anti-rewriting history guy who views the moral outrage often directed at PEDs and the often rampant supposition with little actual fact more disturbing than knowing the Bonds' of baseball had better science than the Aarons' of baseball.science? so crystal meth users getting a better buzz than cocaine users is better science?

hebroncougar
06-26-2012, 11:01 AM
The statement that "Gynecomestia almost always occurs at the onset of puberty in genuine cases" is innaccurate and the veracity of the statement has nothing to do with one's stance on PEDs.

Again, the moral outrage is a little bit over the top. The steroid era wasn't the first period in baseball history where players looked for ways to get an advantage that would be considered unsportsmanlike by an average person. In fact, i'm still searching for an era that was pure. I guess, I don't get the passionate defense of a version of the game that likely never existed. I certainly think the supposition about players that so many so casually throw out to the far corners of the interweb is distasteful (especially considering the ones who seem to do it the loudest are the ones decrying steroids because they muddy the truth in counting stats). My default on PEDs is first, meh and second, owing a positive test like Byrd's, is it really fair to accuse or exhonerate with such certainty? And for the record, who heard about Byrd's suspension and shouted, "I knew it!". We really don't know. Nonetheless, don't direct your vitriole at me. I just disagree that PEDs destroyed tha fabric of professional baseball.

I'm not morally outraged. In fact, I'm chuckling. Anyone who gets caught with a banned substance in their system when the substances are published is an idiot. Then again, he's a client of Victor Conte. I guess one should have expected the result.

jojo
06-26-2012, 11:04 AM
science? so crystal meth users getting a better buzz than cocaine users is better science?

The context of this discussion is performance on a baseball field and finding ways to improve it. It seemed pretty obvious that in this context, I was arguing steroids coupled with better nutrition and exercise routines were more effective than amphetamines and poorer diet/workout regimens-i.e. greater knowledge was greater power.

Not sure why a junkie strawman was evoked....

bucksfan2
06-26-2012, 11:34 AM
The statement that "Gynecomestia almost always occurs at the onset of puberty in genuine cases" is innaccurate and the veracity of the statement has nothing to do with one's stance on PEDs.

Again, the moral outrage is a little bit over the top. The steroid era wasn't the first period in baseball history where players looked for ways to get an advantage that would be considered unsportsmanlike by an average person. In fact, i'm still searching for an era that was pure. I guess, I don't get the passionate defense of a version of the game that likely never existed. I certainly think the supposition about players that so many so casually throw out to the far corners of the interweb is distasteful (especially considering the ones who seem to do it the loudest are the ones decrying steroids because they muddy the truth in counting stats). My default on PEDs is first, meh and second, owing a positive test like Byrd's, is it really fair to accuse or exhonerate with such certainty? And for the record, who heard about Byrd's suspension and shouted, "I knew it!". We really don't know. Nonetheless, don't direct your vitriole at me. I just disagree that PEDs destroyed tha fabric of professional baseball.

JoJo are you a Doctor?

traderumor
06-26-2012, 11:49 AM
The context of this discussion is performance on a baseball field and finding ways to improve it. It seemed pretty obvious that in this context, I was arguing steroids coupled with better nutrition and exercise routines were more effective than amphetamines and poorer diet/workout regimens-i.e. greater knowledge was greater power.

Not sure why a junkie strawman was evoked....First, Bonds WAS a junkie. To say it is anything more than that reveals your bias, as if what juicers did was somehow more noble or sophisticated than someone using recreational drugs for a buzz. A junkie is still a junkie, whether he's doing his drug of choice in a gym lockerroom for money, fame, and "being the best" vs. in his bathroom or in a back alley to experience a "high" or escape from life.

Second, amphetamine use vs. steroid use is not even comparable in the effect on performance and the competitive balance of the game. To minimize steroid use to little more than better baseball through science is repugnant, incredibly moreso than the view you take of those with a negative viewpoint of revealed steroid use as little more than a witchhunt.

jojo
06-26-2012, 01:06 PM
First, Bonds WAS a junkie. To say it is anything more than that reveals your bias, as if what juicers did was somehow more noble or sophisticated than someone using recreational drugs for a buzz. A junkie is still a junkie, whether he's doing his drug of choice in a gym lockerroom for money, fame, and "being the best" vs. in his bathroom or in a back alley to experience a "high" or escape from life.

Again this speaks more to your bias and it's also a strawman if you're suggesting someone has argued PED use is somehow noble.


Second, amphetamine use vs. steroid use is not even comparable in the effect on performance and the competitive balance of the game. To minimize steroid use to little more than better baseball through science is repugnant, incredibly moreso than the view you take of those with a negative viewpoint of revealed steroid use as little more than a witchhunt.

It's not only not repugnant, your argument makes the very same point you're apparently repugnated by... You can't have it both ways, i.e. claim using steroids to improve conditioning and performance is the same as being a heroin addict but then claim that using steroids to enhance performance is somehow not equivalent to using amphetamines to enhance performance based upon the notion that designer steroids represent a more effective technology. It's fair to assume that someone inclined to use amphetamines to enhance performance would likely have used a better performance enhancer if one had been available.

Personally, I find accusing someone of cheating without any evidence to be repugnant. I guess others are free to disagree. But it's a pretty tough sell to label an argument that maintains better Peds, better nutrition, and better kinesiology collectively represents better science as "repugnant". It's not only not offensive, it's a fair statement.

traderumor
06-26-2012, 02:06 PM
Again this speaks more to your bias and it's also a strawman if you're suggesting someone has argued PED use is somehow noble.



It's not only not repugnant, your argument makes the very same point you're apparently repugnated by... You can't have it both ways, i.e. claim using steroids to improve conditioning and performance is the same as being a heroin addict but then claim that using steroids to enhance performance is somehow not equivalent to using amphetamines to enhance performance based upon the notion that designer steroids represent a more effective technology. It's fair to assume that someone inclined to use amphetamines to enhance performance would likely have used a better performance enhancer if one had been available.

Personally, I find accusing someone of cheating without any evidence to be repugnant. I guess others are free to disagree. But it's a pretty tough sell to label an argument that maintains better Peds, better nutrition, and better kinesiology collectively represents better science as "repugnant". It's not only not offensive, it's a fair statement.
Sorry, jojo, but using many words to confuse your main point isn't going to work this time. Using steroids as a part of an advanced workout regimen is not as "bad" as a message board writer believing the veracity of a news story and believing that a person is a "cheater"? An interesting moral code you have there and that is the point that I was making.

Continue your attempt to confuse the point if you must.

jojo
06-26-2012, 06:17 PM
Sorry, jojo, but using many words to confuse your main point isn't going to work this time. Using steroids as a part of an advanced workout regimen is not as "bad" as a message board writer believing the veracity of a news story and believing that a person is a "cheater"? An interesting moral code you have there and that is the point that I was making.

Continue your attempt to confuse the point if you must.

My points have been pretty straightforward.

In my view it's hypocritical to express one's moral outrage by accusing others of cheating without a factual basis for such an accusation. Most would bristle at such a standard being applied to an aspect of their own personal lives. This is actually pretty intuitive isn't it? One can't control what a major league baseball player did or did not put into his body for whatever reason that player had for doing so. One can control the things they write and say though. Arguing this is not the same as arguing taking drugs and posting supposition on a message board are morally equivlent.

I've also argued that it's tenuous to hold a position that the steroid era was somehow an outlier concerning the integrity of profession baseball. We know baseball players cheat and have cheated essentially since the inception of the game. We watch anyway. Why do we keep watching?

In this thread, I've argued that the primary difference between the steroid era and the preceding amphetamine era was that players in the 1990's-2000's had better tools. We romanticize about the M&M boys but ignore that Mantle had to go to the hospital because of an absess created by being injected with unknown chemicals (probably including amphetamines). But we demonize the 1990's and early 2000's largely because 73 became the new 61.

Reasonable people can disagree with my positions. But it's not because i've confused the issue.

Crumbley
06-27-2012, 06:26 PM
science? so crystal meth users getting a better buzz than cocaine users is better science?
Science covers a lot more than what we learned in school.