PDA

View Full Version : Fox Sports On Frank


Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 03:04 PM
Southeast Idaho is now a Fox Sports affiliate (which I consider a step down from The Sporting News---I just love hearing their anchors talk about farting and dropping your pants but that's a different story...) anyway they had their legal expert on discussing the hearing next week and he had some interesting things to say about Frank.

Summerizing he said that it needed to be made clear Frank is not suspected of anything, that Frank has long been outspoken against steroids and Congress wanted his comments about the matter (He also put Schilling in the same boat).

However he said even though Frank is clean he's being put in a difficult situation. Frank can't take the '5th' because he isn't in danger of any legal charges, so he wouldn't be putting himself in jeopardy. He HAS to answer the questions.

As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the law and Congress can answer this.

Still it was nice that Fox Sports made clear Frank's innocence.

Lip

SOXintheBURGH
03-09-2005, 03:08 PM
Southeast Idaho is now a Fox Sports affiliate (which I consider a step down from The Sporting News---I just love hearing their anchors talk about farting and dropping your pants but that's a different story...) anyway they had their legal expert on discussing the hearing next week and he had some interesting things to say about Frank.

Summerizing he said that it needed to be made clear Frank is not suspected of anything, that Frank has long been outspoken against steroids and Congress wanted his comments about the matter (He also put Schilling in the same boat).

However he said even though Frank is clean he's being put in a difficult situation. Frank can't take the '5th' because he isn't in danger of any legal charges, so he wouldn't be putting himself in jeopardy. He HAS to answer the questions.

As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the law and Congress can answer this.

Still it was nice that Fox Sports made clear Frank's innocence.

Lip

I think it make a big difference if Frank says "I SAW "The Choice" taking steroids with my own two eyes," and if Frank says "I would suspect Sammy Sosa to be a steroid freak."

spawn
03-09-2005, 03:12 PM
I think it make a big difference if Frank says "I SAW "The Choice" taking steroids with my own two eyes," and if Frank says "I would suspect Sammy Sosa to be a steroid freak."
I'd have to agree. I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. That said, I would like to think Congressmen wouldn't ask Frank to name players he thinks might be or might have been on 'roids. They'll probably ask if he's on them, or if he's seen anyone using, and they may inquire as to why he's been so outspoken on the issue. But I could be wrong...I usually am!

Baby Fisk
03-09-2005, 03:16 PM
Compared to a complete and utter clown like Giambi with his apologies about nothing, Frank is a bona fide untouchable on this subject. If he names names of players he witnessed taking steroids under oath, his credibility is solid. The question becomes: who is it that Frank would have witnessed?

daveeym
03-09-2005, 03:22 PM
However he said even though Frank is clean he's being put in a difficult situation. Frank can't take the '5th' because he isn't in danger of any legal charges, so he wouldn't be putting himself in jeopardy. He HAS to answer the questions.

As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?


Lip First, the fifth doesn't protect anyone from answering that question. Speculating which others may have used isn't against one's own interests, except when these guys are involved.:sopranos
I really don't think the committee will be putting schilling or thomas on the spot it doesn't really accomplish anything. I'm sure thomas will be prepped for the finger pointing questions and he'll be very diplomatic about it. Also, Congress has been nice enough to have 4-6 easy marks sitting along side of thomas that he can point the finger at. Dead men don't really have much to say about it either so Kenny Cam would be an easy one to point to also.

FJA
03-09-2005, 03:25 PM
Southeast Idaho is now a Fox Sports affiliate (which I consider a step down from The Sporting News---I just love hearing their anchors talk about farting and dropping your pants but that's a different story...) anyway they had their legal expert on discussing the hearing next week and he had some interesting things to say about Frank.

Summerizing he said that it needed to be made clear Frank is not suspected of anything, that Frank has long been outspoken against steroids and Congress wanted his comments about the matter (He also put Schilling in the same boat).

However he said even though Frank is clean he's being put in a difficult situation. Frank can't take the '5th' because he isn't in danger of any legal charges, so he wouldn't be putting himself in jeopardy. He HAS to answer the questions.

As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the law and Congress can answer this.

Still it was nice that Fox Sports made clear Frank's innocence.

Lip

Not sure about being liable to the player named (it's quite possible), but I imagine he'd get in quite a bit of trouble for perjury.

I am more optimistic than most about these hearings, and I don't think they want this to be a witchhunt where non-steroid users name names of steroid users. It seems to be more of a public education forum and an opportunity to hold Giambi, Sosa, Selig, et al., accountable for not only all that has gone on, but for the way they've tried to sweep this under the rug rather than seriously confront it. I'm sure they are going to absolutely obliterate the known users. But I think Frank is there as an example of how non-users are professionally affected by the cheaters; same thing with Schilling, who I think is probably there to represent clean pitchers, and how most of them were affected.

I will be very surprised if Frank comes off of this looking bad. I don't think he'll even have to name names; he will be asked about how he feels having been surpassed by dishonest players not as naturally talented as himself, and he will come off as an honest, solid player among cheaters.

doublem23
03-09-2005, 03:30 PM
I don't know. The fact that no one has yet to bring a lawsuit against Jose Canseco and the bruhaha he's created makes me think that Frank could name drop and probably not face any serious legal consequences. Frank doesn't have best-selling book out there or a World Series ring to pawn off for $400,000 :rolleyes:, so I can't believe anyone would be sitting their, licking their chops at Frank, while Canseco parades around like the assclown he is.

Randar68
03-09-2005, 03:35 PM
who is it that Frank would have witnessed?

Belle and Canseco? Jose?

Randar68
03-09-2005, 03:36 PM
I don't know. The fact that no one has yet to bring a lawsuit against Jose Canseco and the bruhaha he's created makes me think that Frank could name drop and probably not face any serious legal consequences. Frank doesn't have best-selling book out there or a World Series ring to pawn off for $400,000 :rolleyes:, so I can't believe anyone would be sitting their, licking their chops at Frank, while Canseco parades around like the assclown he is.

They won't put him in position to name people he "suspects"... that's just heresay. I suspect they'll ask if he's itnessed it personally, and I suspect Frank will say no.

Mickster
03-09-2005, 03:44 PM
As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?


In a nutshell, no. IIRC, comments made during legal proceedings under oath, at least in Illinois, are an affirmative defense to libel. Frank can say, without any legal repercussions, his answer to that question, without facing a libel suit.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 03:47 PM
Southeast Idaho is now a Fox Sports affiliate (which I consider a step down from The Sporting News---I just love hearing their anchors talk about farting and dropping your pants but that's a different story...) anyway they had their legal expert on discussing the hearing next week and he had some interesting things to say about Frank.

Summerizing he said that it needed to be made clear Frank is not suspected of anything, that Frank has long been outspoken against steroids and Congress wanted his comments about the matter (He also put Schilling in the same boat).

However he said even though Frank is clean he's being put in a difficult situation. Frank can't take the '5th' because he isn't in danger of any legal charges, so he wouldn't be putting himself in jeopardy. He HAS to answer the questions.

As the expert put it what does Frank say when he's asking, 'do you know or suspect anyone who has used steroids?' If he says 'yes,' then he is probably going to be asked to name them. If he says 'no,' then he'll be asked about his comments down through the years, which Congress is sure to have.

I'll go a step beyond this...what if Frank names players he suspected of using steroids and later it is found that some of them are innocent. Is Frank liable? Can he be sued for false accusations? or for damaging a reputation?

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the law and Congress can answer this.

Still it was nice that Fox Sports made clear Frank's innocence.

LipWitnesses under oath have absolute immunity from libel charges for anything they say. This is true in courtrooms as well as congressional hearings. Their only requirement is to tell the truth as best they know it. Of course, they could be charged with perjury if they lie, but that's a different matter.

But I'd be surpised if congress asks players to finger other players. I certainly hope they don't. They may ask in general terms if they have ever seen other players doing steroids, but to start asking players to snitch on other players will quickly degenerate these hearings into a McCarthy-like witch hunt. I doubt they want that.

owensmouth
03-09-2005, 04:10 PM
But I'd be surpised if congress asks players to finger other players. I certainly hope they don't. They may ask in general terms if they have ever seen other players doing steroids, but to start asking players to snitch on other players will quickly degenerate these hearings into a McCarthy-like witch hunt. I doubt they want that.

Never trust a politician. They are primarily looking to make a name for themselves, not the truth.

I just wonder if the people doing the questioning are gonna limit themselves to steroids, or if they'll be asking about other drugs.

SoxEd
03-09-2005, 04:12 PM
Regardless of the Law regarding admissibility (or otherwise) of Testimony in Illinoisian/non-Illinoisian Slander suits, to avoid any possible such repercussions arising out of his testimony, all Frank has to do is respond to any direct questions asking for the names of the guilty in the manner below:

1) "Now, I'm not a doctor, or a biochemist, but I suspect that Player X may have been using some kind of performance enhancing drugs",

or;

2) "I'm not a medical expert, but, for what it's worth, in my opinion, Player Y was juiced to the gills" :wink:

Clearly, option (2) has 'PR disaster' written all over the last part of it (in 9-foot high letters of Living Fire, no less) but you get my drift...

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 04:14 PM
Never trust a politician. They are primarily looking to make a name for themselves, not the truth.

I just wonder if the people doing the questioning are gonna limit themselves to steroids, or if they'll be asking about other drugs.While I don't disagree with that, they can get plenty of publicity without turning it into a circus. Their objective is to look thoughtful and statesmanlike. If they wind up making the players into victims, the politicos will look like opportunistic schmucks.

steff
03-09-2005, 04:17 PM
Belle and Canseco? Jose?


Albert.. on roids...no. For the same reason Paul is clean. They would have made Albert's hip fall apart faster, and Paul would be slower.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:19 PM
While I don't disagree with that, they can get plenty of publicity without turning it into a circus. Their objective is to look thoughtful and statesmanlike. If they wind up making the players into victims, the politicos will look like opportunistic schmucks.

This already IS a circus, and like it or not, that's exactly what the politicos are...:rolleyes:

And all the MLB fans go... "They care... they really really care... My senator stood up for the integrity of the game..."

I hate using this tag...

:chunks

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:21 PM
Albert.. on roids...no. For the same reason Paul is clean. They would have made Albert's hip fall apart faster, and Paul would be slower.

Actually, the medical studies do not support that finding. Steroid use has no connection to degenerative hip disease from what I have heard and from what I have read. On the other hand, steroids are a common treatment for hip related problems. Anyone who has ever seen an old dog succumb to hip problems and seen the wonder steroids can do for the animal's ability to enjoy life can confirm this.

Edit: Again, perhaps Dr B can confirm this for me.

steff
03-09-2005, 04:24 PM
Actually, the medical studies do not support that finding. Steroid use has no connection to degenerative hip disease from what I have heard and from what I have read. On the other hand, steroids are a common treatment for hip related problems. Anyone who has ever seen an old dog succumb to hip problems and seen the wonder steroids can do for the animal's ability to enjoy life can confirm this.

Edit: Again, perhaps Dr B can confirm this for me.



From the horses mouth is where I got the info.. I'll trust that source. Plus.. in 3+ years (when he was at the top of his game) I never once saw any evidence of anything.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:31 PM
From the horses mouth is where I got the info.. I'll trust that source. Plus.. in 3+ years (when he was at the top of his game) I never once saw any evidence of anything.

I was not attempting to dispute your assertions about whether they are clean or not. I was merely talking about the medical aspects of the steroids. I have had a fair experience with steroids after my hearing loss - though not anabolic steroids and doctor after doctor told me there was not connection between the steroids and degenerative hip conditions. That includes my sister who is a research doctor on a different topic in NY.

Perhaps the anabolic steroids do cause those problems, I don't know and perhaps I spoke to soon. Again, perhaps a resident doctor can confirm or deny my statement.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 04:33 PM
This already IS a circus, and like it or not, that's exactly what the politicos are...:rolleyes:

And all the MLB fans go... "They care... they really really care... My senator stood up for the integrity of the game..."

I hate using this tag...

It's one thing to BE an opportunistic schmuck, but looking like one on TV is something else again. And how can it be a circus if it hasn't even happened yet? I'm going to reserve judgement. I don't really care if the politicians are grandstanding. If they can focus public attention on the issue and if, as a result, MLB and the MLBPA are forced to accept more stringent testing and penalties, or even (dare I hope) a REAL investigation instead of a whitewash job, then it will have been worth it.

steff
03-09-2005, 04:34 PM
All I know is they tried to treat him with them.. and he got worse.

Rocklive99
03-09-2005, 04:36 PM
This morning on ESPN Radio, during one of the Bob Pecozzi updates, he was saying the list of players to be subpeanoed and he said "and two players who have always been outspoken against steroids, Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas." :smile:

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:43 PM
It's one thing to BE an opportunistic schmuck, but looking like one on TV is something else again. And how can it be a circus if it hasn't even happened yet? I'm going to reserve judgement. I don't really care if the politicians are grandstanding. If they can focus public attention on the issue and if, as a result, MLB and the MLBPA are forced to accept more stringent testing and penalties, or even (dare I hope) a REAL investigation instead of a whitewash job, then it will have been worth it.

Again, I hope you are right, but I don't see much changing here. MLB owners will moan and wail and gnash their teeth and talk tough and the Player's Association will agree it's a terrible thing and agree to tougher testing but of course nothing can be done until next year as this year's testing policy is already in place and oh woe... what will we do?

It's all hype and it's already a circus because the House invited people to come to them and got told to stuff it so now they HAVE to get tough and issue subpoenas because NO ONE tells the USHOR to stuff it. It just isn't done. So they were forced to issue the subpoenas or look like complete clowns (back to that circus analogy) so they did and now they are going to put on a right fine show and hang a few people in the court of public opinion - but only the ones who have already confessed and by next year, it will all be forgotten...

Washed away by the relentless tide of the next big scandal...

I have to admit. It is totally cracking me up though. Great stuff. Unintentional comedy is always the best...

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:44 PM
All I know is they tried to treat him with them.. and he got worse.

which one? :D:

SoxEd
03-09-2005, 04:46 PM
Anyone who has ever seen an old dog succumb to hip problems and seen the wonder steroids can do for the animal's ability to enjoy life can confirm this.

Edit: Again, perhaps Dr B can confirm this for me.

Hey VC, are you confusing anabolic steroids with corticosteroids?

No, I don't know what the differences are, but asthmatics (and those of us who get allergic rhinitus) are prescribed corticosteroids in inhalers to kill the swelling.

Where's a medic when you need one?

steff
03-09-2005, 04:47 PM
which one? :D:



Obviously the ones that are supposed to make you heal faster. They did the opposite and destroyed the bone faster.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 04:49 PM
Again, I hope you are right, but I don't see much changing here. MLB owners will moan and wail and gnash their teeth and talk tough and the Player's Association will agree it's a terrible thing and agree to tougher testing but of course nothing can be done until next year as this year's testing policy is already in place and oh woe... what will we do?

It's all hype and it's already a circus because the House invited people to come to them and got told to stuff it so now they HAVE to get tough and issue subpoenas because NO ONE tells the USHOR to stuff it. It just isn't done. So they were forced to issue the subpoenas or look like complete clowns (back to that circus analogy) so they did and now they are going to put on a right fine show and hang a few people in the court of public opinion - but only the ones who have already confessed and by next year, it will all be forgotten...

Washed away by the relentless tide of the next big scandal...

I have to admit. It is totally cracking me up though. Great stuff. Unintentional comedy is always the best...The cynical part of me says you're right. But as it stands now, the whole issue died down pretty quickly after Canseco's book. Selig is applying the whitewash with a firehose. The only way anything more will happen is if public attention gets turned on this in a big way, and there's no bigger way than for some big names to admit in front of the cameras that they were juiced, or to look ridiculously guilty lying. After that, who knows what will happen? But at worst, it won't wind up any worse than the current situation.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:50 PM
Obviously the ones that are supposed to make you heal faster. They did the opposite and destroyed the bone faster.

No, I meant which player...:D::bandance:

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 04:51 PM
Hey VC, are you confusing anabolic steroids with corticosteroids?

No, I don't know what the differences are, but asthmatics (and those of us who get allergic rhinitus) are prescribed corticosteroids in inhalers to kill the swelling.

Where's a medic when you need one?Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatories. I had some injected into my elbow some years ago after an injury. (Boy, THAT was fun!). They are sometimes confused with anabolic steroids.

steff
03-09-2005, 04:52 PM
No, I meant which player...:D::bandance:



:rolleyes:

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 04:54 PM
Hey VC, are you confusing anabolic steroids with corticosteroids?

No, I don't know what the differences are, but asthmatics (and those of us who get allergic rhinitus) are prescribed corticosteroids in inhalers to kill the swelling.

Where's a medic when you need one?

Yes, I was in my initial post. I admitted as much in my subsequent reply. I admit that I do not know whether anabolic steroids can cause hip degenerative diseases to get worse or cause them altogether.

I am pretty sure the ones they treat hip problems with are anabolic intended to build muscle mass, but I also admit that I am going strictly off of memory. I had a dog on them and it worked wonders for a while.

SoxEd
03-09-2005, 04:57 PM
I admit that I do not know whether anabolic steroids can cause hip degenerative diseases to get worse or cause them altogether.


D'you think Maggs could tell us?

I mean, if it works for hips, why not knees?

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 05:03 PM
D'you think Maggs could tell us?

I mean, if it works for hips, why not knees?

Muscle mass. The hip is encased in lots and lots of big thick muscles. You can counter balance the problems with the hip by strengtheing the muscles that support the hip joint. You can't do that for the knee which is more exposed.

Edit: and yes, I realize you were being facetious, but it is a question that actually has an answer. Now whether Maggs might try to use that excuse for why he used steroids (if he did/does) is an entirely different issue.

Foulke29
03-09-2005, 05:05 PM
Compared to a complete and utter clown like Giambi with his apologies about nothing, Frank is a bona fide untouchable on this subject. If he names names of players he witnessed taking steroids under oath, his credibility is solid. The question becomes: who is it that Frank would have witnessed?

:canseco Well, they already know about me!

:XL Heck, he might say me just because I am a tool!

:shammy Other than getting thrown out of a spring training game, my favorite activity involves needles - and it's counted cross stitch. No really!

SoxEd
03-09-2005, 05:12 PM
Muscle mass. The hip is encased in lots and lots of big thick muscles. You can counter balance the problems with the hip by strengtheing the muscles that support the hip joint. You can't do that for the knee which is more exposed.

But beefing up the muscles around it DOES help to bear the load - at least that's what I was told to do with my (very slight) knee (cartilage) injury before I went back to playing soccer.

The again, that could just have been advice to counteract the muscle atrophy from two months off I suppose.

Edit: and yes, I realize you were being facetious, but it is a question that actually has an answer. Now whether Maggs might try to use that excuse for why he used steroids (if he did/does) is an entirely different issue.

I wasn't suggesting Maggs was a juicer, only that his knee remains likely IMO to be as ropey as a long coil of twisted hemp fibres.

In any case, if he is using them, prescribed by his doc, for therapeutic reasons, then he isn't using them illegally.

And, I wish the guy every success with Detroit, as long as their Win% is WAY behind ours...:D:

Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 06:17 PM
Some significant updates. Apparently the MLB owners in so many words told Congress to 'go to hell.' They are going to fight this. You can also see a report on this tonight on Newsnight with Aaron Brown starting at 10PM Chicago time on CNN.

Also even though Thomas said he'd testify Monday as part of the formal response by MLB Thomas is listed with the others as refusing to testify.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3449268?GT1=6209

Lip

beckett21
03-09-2005, 07:07 PM
Actually, the medical studies do not support that finding. Steroid use has no connection to degenerative hip disease from what I have heard and from what I have read. On the other hand, steroids are a common treatment for hip related problems. Anyone who has ever seen an old dog succumb to hip problems and seen the wonder steroids can do for the animal's ability to enjoy life can confirm this.

Edit: Again, perhaps Dr B can confirm this for me.

There is a significant difference between Anabolic steroids (androgens) which are used by athletes to build muscle mass, and Catabolic steroids (glucocorticoids) which are used to treat various disease states like Lupus and Rheumatoid arthritis.

Side effects of the anabolic steroids can include acne, masculinization in women (i.e. facial hair growth, deepening of the voice), feminization in men (gynecomastia or development of breasts, shrinking of testes) as well as male-pattern baldness. They can also cause liver damage. I am far from an expert on the subject, but from my reading I do not believe that they would have a negative effect on bone. Again, not an expert here.

Catabolic steroids, on the other hand, do cause osteopenia (loss of bone mass) with prolonged long-term use, and have been associated with avascular necrosis of bone in the hip and knee. Avascular necrosis is essentially the loss of blood supply to the bone in question, resulting in bone death. This can be seen in the hip and is similar to what happened to Bo Jackson, though Bo's condition was caused secondary to injury and not drug-induced. Catabolic steroids are anti-inflammatory in nature, and can be used to treat the symptoms of arthritis. An example would be Prednisone. However, as Steff alluded to, catabolic steroids like Prednisone can have a negative effect on bone in the long-term and can make the condition worse by virtue of weakening the bones. Like ON2 said, catabolic steroids are also injected into joints and tissues for pain relief (the famous *cortisone shots*). Over time, too many cortisone shots lead to weakening of tissues and can also make matters worse. They have to be used judiciously.

Hopefully that all made some sense. :redneck

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 07:13 PM
There is a significant difference between Anabolic steroids (androgens) which are used by athletes to build muscle mass, and Catabolic steroids (glucocorticoids) which are used to treat various disease states like Lupus and Rheumatoid arthritis.

Side effects of the anabolic steroids can include acne, masculinization in women (i.e. facial hair growth, deepening of the voice), feminization in men (gynecomastia or development of breasts, shrinking of testes) as well as male-pattern baldness. They can also cause liver damage. I am far from an expert on the subject, but from my reading I do not believe that they would have a negative effect on bone. Again, not an expert here.

Catabolic steroids, on the other hand, do cause osteopenia (loss of bone mass) with prolonged long-term use, and have been associated with avascular necrosis of bone in the hip and knee. Avascular necrosis is essentially the loss of blood supply to the bone in question, resulting in bone death. This can be seen in the hip and is similar to what happened to Bo Jackson, though Bo's condition was caused secondary to injury and not drug-induced. Catabolic steroids are anti-inflammatory in nature, and can be used to treat the symptoms of arthritis. An example would be Prednisone. However, as Steff alluded to, catabolic steroids like Prednisone can have a negative effect on bone in the long-term and can make the condition worse by virtue of weakening the bones. Like ON2 said, catabolic steroids are also injected into joints and tissues for pain relief (the famous *cortisone shots*). Over time, too many cortisone shots lead to weakening of tissues and can also make matters worse. They have to be used judiciously.

Hopefully that all made some sense. :redneck


Actually it did and thanks.

I cannot speak to the long term stuff. I was informed that people had to be weaned off of the Catabolic steroids (I was on Prednizone) because sudden stopping could cause problems. The hearing doctor said that was not the case and the second and third opinions I got confirmed it. My sister got involved to confirm these issues as it was her who first raised them.

Of course, I was only on Prednizone for a few weeks after the second hearing loss. It had no effect, so they took me off of it.

Thanks for the info, Doc.

beckett21
03-09-2005, 07:32 PM
Actually it did and thanks.

I cannot speak to the long term stuff. I was informed that people had to be weaned off of the Catabolic steroids (I was on Prednizone) because sudden stopping could cause problems. The hearing doctor said that was not the case and the second and third opinions I got confirmed it. My sister got involved to confirm these issues as it was her who first raised them.

Of course, I was only on Prednizone for a few weeks after the second hearing loss. It had no effect, so they took me off of it.

Thanks for the info, Doc.

If you are only on the prednisone for a short time, no big deal. People that are on corticosteroids for long periods of time do generally need to be weaned off of them when stopping therapy because the body becomes dependent on the external source and stops producing its own--this is called adrenal supression. The problem is not as prominent with short-acting corticosteroids like Prednisone, moreso with long-acting corticosteroids.

Daver
03-09-2005, 07:35 PM
I knew there was a reason you're the Official Physician.


:)

beckett21
03-09-2005, 07:37 PM
I knew there was a reason you're the Official Physician.


:)

:anon:

Deadguy
03-09-2005, 08:45 PM
Compared to a complete and utter clown like Giambi with his apologies about nothing, Frank is a bona fide untouchable on this subject. If he names names of players he witnessed taking steroids under oath, his credibility is solid. The question becomes: who is it that Frank would have witnessed?

According to the Score interview, he claims to have never witnessed anyone take steroids. Of course a Score interview is different than testifying before Conress, but I don't think he's lying.

maurice
03-09-2005, 09:22 PM
According to the Score interview, he claims to have never witnessed anyone take steroids. Of course a Score interview is different than testifying before Conress, but I don't think he's lying.

I suspect he'll tell Congress the same thing, if they even bother to ask. They can't make him speculate about the names of possible steroid users. He can answer any question requiring speculation by simply saying "I don't know."

I expect that the Thomas and Schilling session will be a love fest, while the other sessions will resemble an inquisition. It should make for good reality TV and some long-deserved positive pub for Frank.

Flight #24
03-09-2005, 10:20 PM
I suspect he'll tell Congress the same thing, if they even bother to ask. They can't make him speculate about the names of possible steroid users. He can answer any question requiring speculation by simply saying "I don't know."

I expect that the Thomas and Schilling session will be a love fest, while the other sessions will resemble an inquisition. It should make for good reality TV and some long-deserved positive pub for Frank.

Can we send suggested questions to the committee?

"Frank - is it true that you're the only player in MLB history to put together 7 seasons batting .300+ with 30HR, 100R, 100RBI, 100BB?"

"Wouldn't you say that putting up dominant numbers in a steroid inflated time makes you possibly the greatest hitter of your era?"

I'm sure we can come up with the appropriate questions for all of the "testifiers".......:redneck

Lip Man 1
03-10-2005, 12:19 AM
Here the story on Frank testifying from the Tribune (and no this isn't the whole story...)

"Injured White Sox slugger Frank Thomas informed manager Ozzie Guillen on Wednesday he would testify March 17 in front of a congressional committee on steroids.

"Yeah, he's going to be there," Guillen said after the White Sox's 7-3 victory over San Diego at the Peoria Sports Complex.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/images/standard/clear.gifhttp://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/images/standard/clear.gif
Guillen said he spoke with Thomas before departing for the Phoenix area. Thomas remained in Tucson to resume his rehabilitation from a left ankle injury that could sideline him past his projected return date of mid-April.

Thomas has been outspoken about banning steroids in baseball and had welcomed the invitation to testify. His only concern was that his injured ankle tends to swell considerably on even one-hour flights from his Las Vegas home.

Thomas is one of seven former and current players who received subpoenas compelling them to testify.

Teammate Paul Konerko says Thomas is an ideal person to discuss steroids because of his success and past outspokenness against steroids.

"I don't care too much about the steroids issue, but I know Frank makes it's clear," Konerko said. "If there's something going on, Frank is ahead of the game on saying it's a problem.

"All this should make his numbers (436 career home runs) stand out more."

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-10-2005, 12:21 AM
Flight:

You missed a few...

Mr. Sosa can you explain why you would have ten thousand dollars in cash in a Miami hotel room?

Mr. Sosa can you explain how it is you gained fifty pounds and increased your home run totals from 15 with the White Sox to around 60 with the Cubs?

Lip

shoota
03-10-2005, 04:30 AM
Dr. Beckett, I sprained my right ankle pretty good over a year ago, and to this day it is still fatter than my left ankle--especially around the outside part of the foot near the big bone.

I have no pain anymore, but I'm curious if this swelling is permanent. A soccer-playing buddy has the same long-term swelling of both ankles from sprains.

Diagnosis?

Flight #24
03-10-2005, 09:40 AM
Dr. Beckett, I sprained my right ankle pretty good over a year ago, and to this day it is still fatter than my left ankle--especially around the outside part of the foot near the big bone.

I have no pain anymore, but I'm curious if this swelling is permanent. A soccer-playing buddy has the same long-term swelling of both ankles from sprains.

Diagnosis?

http://a248.g.akamai.net/f/1261/5586/30d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/regular/10112000/10112414.jpg

"My advice to you is to start drinking heavily"

beckett21
03-10-2005, 06:05 PM
Dr. Beckett, I sprained my right ankle pretty good over a year ago, and to this day it is still fatter than my left ankle--especially around the outside part of the foot near the big bone.

I have no pain anymore, but I'm curious if this swelling is permanent. A soccer-playing buddy has the same long-term swelling of both ankles from sprains.

Diagnosis?

Assuming you just *sprained* it and didn't break anything, sprains can still take quite awhile to fully heal. The ligaments are never as strong after a bad sprain, and you are more susceptible to sprains in the future. No good way to gauge when the swelling will subside completely. If you are very active, it could continue indefinitely. As long as it is not causing pain, probably not much to worry about. I'd recommend some type of compressive ankle sleeve or brace for strenuous exercise, and NSAIDS as needed.

If it is painful, you may be suffering from a number of things from tendonitis/tenosynovitis (inflammation around a tendon) to synovitis (inflammation of the fluid inside the joint). As far as the *big bone on the outside of the foot,* a major tendon attaches there, and if it is painful this would indicate tendonitis to me (assuming no fracture/stress fracture).

Hope this helps. That will be $85. :redneck

Feel free to PM me with any further questions.

A. Cavatica
03-10-2005, 08:37 PM
:hurt

"Why, yes, Mr. Senator, I personally witnessed Torii Hunter, Johan Santana, Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer injecting each other with steroids. Also C. C. Sabathia, Travis Hafner, Mike Sweeney, and Ivan Rodriguez. Plus I'm pretty sure Magglio Ordonez is on crack."

voodoochile
03-10-2005, 09:27 PM
:hurt

"Why, yes, Mr. Senator, I personally witnessed Torii Hunter, Johan Santana, Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer injecting each other with steroids. Also C. C. Sabathia, Travis Hafner, Mike Sweeney, and Ivan Rodriguez. Plus I'm pretty sure Magglio Ordonez is on crack."

*****!

POTW! (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=13&id=2759)

shoota
03-10-2005, 10:12 PM
http://a248.g.akamai.net/f/1261/5586/30d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/regular/10112000/10112414.jpg

"My advice to you is to start drinking heavily"

http://a248.g.akamai.net/f/1261/5586/30d/images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/regular/10112000/10112414.jpg

I would start "drinking heavily," but they took the BAR, THE WHOLE ****ING BAR! :D::gulp:

shoota
03-10-2005, 10:14 PM
Assuming you just *sprained* it and didn't break anything, sprains can still take quite awhile to fully heal. The ligaments are never as strong after a bad sprain, and you are more susceptible to sprains in the future. No good way to gauge when the swelling will subside completely. If you are very active, it could continue indefinitely. As long as it is not causing pain, probably not much to worry about. I'd recommend some type of compressive ankle sleeve or brace for strenuous exercise, and NSAIDS as needed.

If it is painful, you may be suffering from a number of things from tendonitis/tenosynovitis (inflammation around a tendon) to synovitis (inflammation of the fluid inside the joint). As far as the *big bone on the outside of the foot,* a major tendon attaches there, and if it is painful this would indicate tendonitis to me (assuming no fracture/stress fracture).

Hope this helps. That will be $85. :redneck

Feel free to PM me with any further questions.


Thank you sir! :smile: The check is in the mail. But if for some reason you don't receive it, I'll buy you a beer sometime at Comiskey. :gulp:

A. Cavatica
03-11-2005, 12:26 PM
*****!

POTW! (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=13&id=2759)

Thanks! Only my second.