|
="Rockin' Doc":1owguwap]I had a similar thought regarding the number of injuries in the wake of increased steroid testing and penalties. Considering the palliative, anti-inflammatory properties steroids, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe there is some correlation between decreased steroid usage and the number of player days lost to various injuries.[/quote:1owguwap]
I completely agree.
|
Edgy DC
Aug 06 2009 07:26 AM
|
|
It used to be believed that steroids were causing all the muscle injuries. Now we're to believe that lack of steroids is doing it?
And what's being implied? That Niese, Nieve, Reyes, Pagan and others are off the juice for the first time in their careers? Niese has spent pretty much his whole career in the aggressive testing era.
Some of these things we're too close to. And the answers aren't so simple. Remember how many corner outfielders were lost one on top of the other last year? Alou, Pagan, Church, Anderson, Chavez. Bam-bam-bam-bam-bam! We were looking to the likes of Chris Aguila, Trot Nixon, and Andy Phillips to save our bacon. Nixon went down with a groin injury also. Was that all roids or lack of roids?
Lee Mazzilli pulled his back turning to talk to somebody on the bench. Heith Hernandez was two pretty good years away from the Hall of Fame, rounded second one day, felt his hammy go, went down like he'd been shot*, and was wasted money the rest of his career.
The body is a fragile and mysterious thing and athletes ask a lot of theirs. I'm not saying roids or lack of roids aren't involved, but it sure seems highly speculative.
*T. McCarver, 1988.
|
Number 6
Aug 06 2009 10:37 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":1vgavtwu]It used to be believed that steroids were causing all the muscle injuries. Now we're to believe that lack of steroids is doing it?[/quote:1vgavtwu]
As far as I can tell, nobody here is insisting this is true. The suggestion wasn't that this is happening, only that it could be. Besides, I don't remember reading anything beyond somebody's similarly wild speculation that steroids caused muscle injuries, and you didn't hear that from my typing fingers, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting that the existence of a contrary perspective weakens my argument.
="Edgy DC":1vgavtwu]And what's being implied? That Niese, Nieve, Reyes, Pagan and others are off the juice for the first time in their careers? Niese has spent pretty much his whole career in the aggressive testing era.[/quote:1vgavtwu]
None of that is remotely being implied. I'm saying that steroids can be used regularly or in order to ameliorate injury symptoms on an as-needed basis (or both, of course). And I am not saying anything about any specific player; I'm saying if, as it seems, there are significantly more injuries lasting for a longer time this season, is it possible that the decline in the as-needed application of certain steroids may be part of the reason?
="Edgy DC":1vgavtwu]Some of these things we're too close to. And the answers aren't so simple. Remember how many corner outfielders were lost one on top of the other last year? Alou, Pagan, Church, Anderson, Chavez. Bam-bam-bam-bam-bam! We were looking to the likes of Chris Aguila, Trot Nixon, and Andy Phillips to save our bacon. Nixon went down with a groin injury also. Was that all roids or lack of roids?[/quote:1vgavtwu]
I have no idea what role, if any, steroids played in these are any other specific injuries. Nothing in my argument is meant to imply that I do. Injuries have always happened; that hasn't changed. What has changed is how teams and players treat them. When there is a significant increase in the frequency and severity of muscle injuries coinciding with a league crackdown on commonly used substances known to have a restorative effect on muscle tissue, it raises the possibility. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that there is no correlation whatsoever.
="Edgy DC":1vgavtwu]The body is a fragile and mysterious thing and athletes ask a lot of theirs. I'm not saying roids or lack of roids aren't involved, but it sure seems highly speculative.[/quote:1vgavtwu]
I agree. I tried to take pains in my posts to acknowledge that this is wild speculation. I understand that it can't be answered or proven, and it's only one way that the pieces may fit.
|
Edgy DC
Aug 06 2009 10:53 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 06 2009 11:23 AM
|
|
Before investigating what is causing the uptick, shouldn't we start by establishing that there is, in fact, an uptick?
|
Number 6
Aug 06 2009 11:16 AM
|
|
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/sports/baseball/07injuries.html:1mpj5dye]Here's[/url:1mpj5dye] an article that reports that the injury rate has increased in the past three years. It also includes plenty of similarly wild-assed speculation about why, including the theory about steroids causing injuries that you referenced earlier.
I don't doubt Stan Conte's point that it's likely to be due to a number of factors.
|
soupcan
Aug 06 2009 11:25 AM
|
|
| ="Edgy DC"]Same trainer as last year. |
Same trainer maybe but the training staff is minus this guy, Jeff Cavaliere:
And he's the one who developed [url=http://magazine.stack.com/TheIssue/Article/5289/The_Mets_Glute_and_Hamstring_Work.aspx]this[/url]
Now I'm not going to go as far as saying that Cavaliere's absence is the reason for the plethora of leg injuries, but I think it merits some discussion.
Oh, and while Cavaliere no longer works for the Mets, he continues to be employed privately by David Wright. Wright, it can be noted, has had no leg issues this year.
|
Edgy DC
Aug 06 2009 11:29 AM
|
|
Wright, it can be noted, joins Reed, Tatis, and Murphy as the only guys to stay standing all year.
Murphy strained his hammy at the end of 2008. I don't think it became an issue until the AFL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
