The Pink Flamingo :: What If Roger Clemens Is Innocent

Below you will probably find everything you never wanted to know about HGH. I think the only way we are ever going to find out if some of these players has used HGH is when and if the end up dying of some of the terrible side effects of the HGH cocktail. What happens is there are some designer anabolic steroids that can be flushed out of a system within 24 hours. Then the anabolic steroid is enhanced with a high dose of HGH. That's how it works. The big problem is the fact that the actual studies that have been done on HGH seem to prove that intensive weight training without steroids do more for an ballplayer's performance than HGH.

You will also find additional information on the stats of various ball players. The bottom line here is the fact that Roger Clemens life time stats are consistent with those of legends like Koufax, Drysdale, Gibson, and Seaver.

There is something else. What if Clemens is innocent? Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? I'm not a Clemens fan. I don't approve of today's multi-millionaire money-grubbing spoiled brat 'super-stars'. They can't hold a candle to the players I mentioned above: Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver. Those were pitchers. But - as I've mentioned many times, something about this whole mess bothers me. When you see the information I have below, maybe you will see where I am going with it.

WHAT IS HGH?
What is HGH - Human Growth Hormone?

"...Treatments unrelated to deficiency
GH can be used to treat conditions which produce short stature but are not related to deficiencies in GH, though results are not as dramatic when compared to short stature solely due to deficiency of GH. Examples of other causes of shortness often treated with GH are Turner syndrome, chronic renal failure, Prader-Willi syndrome, intrauterine growth retardation, and severe idiopathic short stature. Higher ("pharmacologic") doses are required to produce significant acceleration of growth in these conditions, producing blood levels well above physiologic. Despite the higher doses, side effects during treatment are rare, and vary little according to the condition being treated.
GH treatment improves muscle strength and slightly reduces body fat in Prader-Willi syndrome, which are significant concerns beyond the need to increase height. GH is also useful in maintaining muscle mass in wasting due to AIDS. GH can also be used in patients with short bowel syndrome to lessen the requirement for intravenous total parenteral nutrition.
Uses that are controversial include
GH treatment for remission of Multiple sclerosis
GH treatment to reverse effects of ageing in older adults (see below)
GH treatment to enhance weight loss in obesity
GH treatment for fibromyalgia
GH treatment for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis
GH treatment for idiopathic short stature
GH treatment for bodybuilding or athletic enhancement
The use of bovine somatotropin to increase milk production in cattle..."

Anti-aging agent
Claims for GH as an anti-aging treatment date back to 1990 when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study where GH was used to treat 12 men over 60. At the conclusion of the study all the men showed statistically significant increases in lean body mass and bone mineral, while the control group did not. The authors of the study noted that these were the kind of changes that would occur naturally over a 10 to 20 year aging period. Despite the fact the authors at no time claimed that GH had reversed the aging process itself, their results were mis-interpreted as indicating GH was an effective anti-aging agent. [7]
A Stanford University School of Medicine survey of clinical studies on the subject published in early 2007 showed that the application of GH on healthy elderly patients increased muscle by about 2 kg and decreased body fat by the same amount.[7] However, these were the only positive effects from taking GH. No other critical factors were affected, such as bone density, cholesterol levels, lipid measurements, maximal oxygen consumption, or any other factor that would indicate increased fitness.[7] Researchers also didn't discover any gain in muscle strength, which led them to believe that GH merely let the body store more water in the muscles rather than increase muscle growth. This would explain the increase in lean body mass. Regular application of GH did show several negative side effects such as joint swelling, joint pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and an increased risk of diabetes.[7]

Side effects in adults may include extreme aggression, malaise, and dry mouth.[citation needed] There is theoretical concern that GH treatment may increase the risks of diabetes, especially in those with other predispositions treated with higher doses. One survey of adults who had been treated with replacement cadaver GH (which has not been used anywhere in the world, since 1985) during childhood showed a mildly increased incidence of colon cancer, but linkage with the GH treatment was not established.[8]..."

The Mayo Clinic 411 on HGH: The bottom line is I wouldn't take it.

"...What can human growth hormone do for healthy older adults who don't need it?
Studies of healthy older adults taking human growth hormone are limited. Many involve a small number of people followed for a short period of time. The studies that have been conducted have found that human growth hormone injections can increase muscle mass and reduce the amount of body fat in healthy older adults.

That increase in muscle doesn't translate into increased strength. Though the study participants gained muscle, they weren't any stronger. One study compared older men who took human growth hormone with older men who went through strength training programs. The bottom line: Strength training can increase both your muscle mass and your strength, making it cheaper and more effective than taking human growth hormone.

It isn't clear whether human growth hormone can provide other benefits, such as increased bone density and improved mood, to healthy adults. Most of the research into human growth hormone has focused on people with true growth hormone deficiencies.

Are there any risks to taking human growth hormone if you don't need it?
Taking human growth hormone can cause a number of side effects, including:

Swelling in your arms and legs

Arthritis-like symptoms
Carpal tunnel symptoms
Headaches
Bloating
Muscle pain
Diabetes
Abnormal growth of bones and internal organs
Hardening of the arteries
High blood pressure
Some evidence shows that side effects of human growth hormone treatments may be more likely in older adults than in younger adults. Also, because the studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone have been short term, it isn't clear whether these side effects could eventually dissipate or become worse. For instance, though human growth hormone produced arthritis-like symptoms, it isn't clear if this would progress into arthritis. More study is needed...."

HGH News. You can buy this stuff all over the internet if you use homeopathic versions. Then there is the criminal use of it. Evidently only 2 manufacturers are legal if you are purchasing the "pure form". The whole thing is rather fascinating. Is it good or bad? You may find some additional information about HGH in baseball and sports here. The thing that interests me is the fact that there can be a placebo effect with HGO, and good weight training can basically do the same thing HGH can do. Fascinating.

"...A recent double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 27 women and 34 men, 68 to 88 years of age, who were given growth hormone or placebo for 6.5 months confirmed the effects of growth hormone on body composition; there was no change in muscle strength or maximal oxygen uptake during exercise in either group. This study corroborated the findings of a study by Papadakis et al. involving 52 healthy men, 70 to 85 years of age, who were given placebo or growth hormone for six months. Not mentioned on the “antiaging” Web sites is a study of 18 healthy men, 65 to 82 years of age, who underwent progressive strength training for 14 weeks, followed by an additional 10 weeks of strength training plus either growth hormone or placebo. In that study, resistance exercise training increased muscle strength significantly; the addition of growth hormone did not result in any further improvement...."

THE STAT STUDY
Roger Clemens lifetime stats are fairly consistent.
Then look at Barry Bonds' stats. They are far from consistent.
The same holds true with Andy Pettitte.
Chuck Knoblauch's are interesting.

I checked out Clemens lifetime stats against Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, and Tom Seaver. If you want my honest opinion, Clemens can't hold up to those guys, but that is beside the point. If you examine his life-time pitching pattern and the patterns of those greats, they are much the same, good years, bad years, ups and downs, but nothing that jumps out at you. I've always thought he was just a tad over-estimated as a pitcher, if you want my honest opinion. This said, I go back to the changes in the mound that resulted in a very lively ball (far too lively) these past 10 years and wonder what his ERA would have been had he pitched during the era of the previously mentioned grates.

Then check out Barry Bonds (oye). His stats are all over the place. If you look at them, there is no logical way he should be the "home run pretender to the throne". Check MY MAN Johnny's (Bench) life time stats, they are beautiful in their consistency but then again, he was a REAL baseball player and the greatest catcher ever. Since it has now been PROVEN that he used steroids in 2001, perhaps all of this is a mote point.

Gregg Doyel has an interesting column at CBS Sports today, that reflects my thinking.

"...But I see Roger Clemens deny it and I hear Roger Clemens deny it and my mind shouts Duke lacrosse! You remember the Duke lacrosse case. The evidence seemed to be there. Those snotty Duke players were accused of raping a stripper, and the prosecutor said he was convinced the crime happened. Duke being Duke, and the times being what they are, much of this country wanted to believe they were guilty. Do I include myself in that mix? Sure I do. Based on what I'd read and heard and based on my own baggage about the snotty elite at Duke, I assumed they did something horrific that night. Turns out they were innocent. Millions of us were wrong...."

Body language experts say he is guilty. Of course she also says Brian McNamnee was telling the truth! (Ballbug) But - what if Andy Pettitte was lying?
Newsday

"...Pettitte is no saint in this sad episode, despite all that stuff about answering to his God, which is why he came clean. In truth, he lied. In his initial response to the Mitchell Report, Pettitte said he used HGH once. Then he told the committee he used it twice. What's he gonna tell his God on Judgment Day, that it was three times?..."

THE GRUDGE MATCH
There is an interesting commentary at Baseball Digest which is extremely revealing. Evidently McNamee was working on a business deal and dropped a few names he should not have dropped - then he manipulated the facts. Read the break-down of the testimony. McNamee has a personal grudge against Roger Clemens - enough to frame him.

"...Mr. Davis of Virginia: On the checks you wrote Kirk Radomski, and printed in the appendix of the Mitchell Report at page D-11, you list yourself as Dr. Brian McNamee. At that point, you still feel you could hold yourself out in good faith as a doctor?

Mr. McNamee: I am not sure if I follow.

Mr. Davis of Virginia: On the checks you wrote Kirk Radomski you printed in the appendix there in the Mitchell Report, you list yourself on the checks as Dr. Brian McNamee. This was in good faith? You still hold yourself out as a doctor, right?

Mr. McNamee: I am sure -- if that was under my business account, then I probably did if it was a business check.

Simply put--he did hold himself out to players and teams as a doctor--not a PhD.

Why?

Doctors can charge more than a ‘personal trainer’ or a PhD--he was motivated by money. MacNamee used this status to obtain employment as a personal trainer to multi-millionaire athletes.

He trafficked in illegal drugs including, most obviously, anabolic steroids and human growth hormone--again for money.

Again, during this five minute question period:

Mr. Davis of Virginia: ... But let me just ask quickly, did you ask Roger Clemens' or Andy Pettitte's permission to use pictures in one of your advertisements which promotes McNamee as Dr. Brian McNamee, who is widely recognized for his work with Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, Mike Stanton, and many other star athletes?

Mr. McNamee: No. I never asked their permission.

Again … why? The answer is simple, to use their names would require payment to the players. By not asking permission, he wouldn’t have to pay them thereby keeping more money for himself. Speaking of which, as we discussed in the previous post--when did Brian MacNamee inform Andy Pettitte that Clemens used steroids?

Pettitte’s account went like this: “Yeah. I believe -- I believe it was -- I believe --McNamee was working with a company called Invite … But Mac had asked me and Roger to do some sponsor promoting for it. And they were trying to work out deals -- you know, we were trying to work out a deal, compensation, stuff like that. Well, our understanding from -- my understanding from Mac was the company wasn't able to pay us a lot of money, you know, to, you know, have us, you know, maybe in their little brochure that they send out and stuff like that ... And I remember Mac just being extremely mad and saying, you know, that Roger wanted to get a lot of compensation for it as far as money-wise.” (bolding and italics mine)

We see (1) MacNamee asserting that the company couldn’t pay a lot of money. Is this true or another lie to get their endorsements on the cheap? Further, (2) we note that MacNamee was furious with Clemens for wanting to be paid a lot for using his name. We’re left in the dark as to whether this is the brochure that Davis queried MacNamee about where he used players’ names without permission. Regardless, we see money being a major factor in MacNamee’s life and decision-making process.

What we do know is that of all his clients, the one he kept the most paraphernalia from is the one he was extremely angry at due to being a roadblock to maximizing his income. It could also explain how both Pettitte and Knoblauch corroborated MacNamee’s account but not Clemens. MacNamee was lying to get back at him for (possibly) costing him money....The question has to asked, is it possible that MacNamee was truthful about Knoblauch and Pettitte but lying about Clemens? Does he have motive? Yes, did have opportunity--certainly. There are differences between Pettitte/Knoblauch and Clemens--Pettitte/Knoblauch never hindered MacNamee’s effort to make more money and he never saved anywhere near as much evidence from the two. In each case, we see differences between Pettitte/Knoblauch’s relationship with MacNamee and the one with Clemens.

Why is it so hard to believe that he is being truthful about the duo and not Clemens?

Don’t misunderstand--I’m not saying this exonerates Roger Clemens. What I am saying is that any suspicions I have about any PED usage on his part have not been bolstered by the Mitchell Report and Brian MacNamee. MacNamee was Mitchell’s star witness and the star witness is somebody I do not trust to tell the truth in the case of Roger Clemens...."

More from Baseball Digest - this also implicates Pettitte in a strange way.

"...Q. -- and I thought that was almost another word for being polite. Do you -- today, as you look back, do you think you misunderstood?

Pettitte: I don't think I misunderstood him. Just to answer that question for you when it was brought up to me, I don't think I misunderstood him. I went to Mac immediately after that. But then, 6 years later when he told me that I did misunderstand him, you know, since '05 to this day, you know, I kind of felt that I might have misunderstood him.

I'm sure you can understand, you know, where I'm coming from with that conversation.

We have come full circle--everything revolves around a conversation from 1999 between Clemens and Pettitte and another one between MacNamee and Pettitte a few years later--a conversation in which MacNamee was very angry at Clemens.

I can’t see Clemens being charged with perjury in the light of all this--further, I’m very curious about what happened with the correspondences sent out by Mitchell to the players. Evidently, they first went to the MLBPA who in turn forwarded them to player agents. There should be some investigation regarding what happened to the letters after that. Mitchell said he sent out correspondence on may occasions but neither Pettitte or Clemens received them. The only one Pettitte knew about was the one he discussed with his agents (the Hendricks brothers).

I find that a lot of Pettitte’s deposition supports what Clemens said on Wednesday...."

This leads me to ask the following question: Why would Andy Pettitte not want to testify the day Roger Clemens did, but did so privately?