O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

[bigtruck260]

You know, in 1996, he had a huge year - 33 HR and 89 RBI. His next biggest year was 1990 - and he hit a whopping 20 HR. He never came close after 1996.

With all of the critcizm of players in that era (which Larkin was a part of) has he never been associated with them? Not knocking Barry, he was a great player - and likely did not juice, I'm just wondering why nobody has ever lumped him in with other guys who had 'incredible' breakout seasons from 1996 on...

Not trying to be controversial, just asking a question.

[suave1477]

Hello Dave,

Not sure I follow you on this one. Your asking why isn't Larkin being questioned because of one above average season with home runs in baseball?

Most players in baseball or for that fact in any sport have one great season. It's just natural ability.

Something just clicks for you in one season, your feeling good, seeing the ball better, more relaxed, under a different manager or coach which you feel more comfortable with.

I don't think having just one above average season woulf strike a red flag of using PED's

I repeat saying above average because during the 90's it was getting more common for players to hit over 20 Home Runs a season and possibly hitting over 30.
If he hit 50 maybe 40. I would have a concern. But 33 really doesn't draw attention for me.

[earlywynnfan]

I agree, and I'm a big fan of Larkin's. This, to me, is the biggest problem with all the steroids: Nobody is immune to questions.

I'll give you another one: Last spring, I believe, some major magazine wrote how we all should root for Albert Pujols, because he's 1) a really nice guy, 2) an incredible player, and 3) CLEAN!! Now, no way am I sitting here saying Pujols is on anything. But I'm supposed to go to games and root him on like a diehard fan because I "know" he's clean? How do I know that??? I've never seen a Dominican this big before, have you? Not to be stereotypical, but aren't they supposed to be little guys? Heck, how many baseball players in general were this big before 1980? (I'll spot you Howard, Radatz, Conley, and Greenberg. Heck, Jimmie Foxx was known as the Beast and he wasn't close!)

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[2000mvpfan]

Suave-
I don't know about that..I'm sure sometimes a guy can be locked in.But when a guy like Brady Anderson,who never hit more than 24 in a season,suddenly hits 50...there's more than just being in the zone at work.


Joe

[suave1477]

Earlywynn in from New York City and we have a few Dominican communities here and I have a some Dominican friends. They are not at all small. There are big ones and small ones just like any other culture.

Just an FYI Pujols is not all that big. He is 6'3 210 lbs.

In comparison

I am 6'2 225lbs
David Ortiz 6'4 230lbs
Vladimir Guerrero 6'3 235lbs

[suave1477]

Suave-
I don't know about that..I'm sure sometimes a guy can be locked in.But when a guy like Brady Anderson,who never hit more than 24 in a season,suddenly hits 50...there's more than just being in the zone at work.


Joe

Joe ok but I said that

[cjclong]

But if the whole thing with Brady Anderson was steroids the year he hit 50 home runs why would he have taken them only for his max home run year and then stopped. Why wouldn't he have taken them the next year and hit 40 or 50 again. That would not make much sense to stop after his big year. And the same thing could be said of Roger Maris who hit 61 home runs in 1961 and never hit as many as 40 before or after that. And I don't hear Maris being accused of being a steroid user in 1961.

[bigtruck260]

Correction Suave...

Albert is more like 6' 2"" and 230-240. EVERYONE who played in the era will be questioned...my point of the thread is that after A-Rod got popped, everyone in my mind will make me wonder. Sure there are guys that I have 100% confidence never juiced - Tony Gwynn comes to mind...but almost everyone.

Did you ever see the size of Ron Gant up close? Glenn Braggs was also ripped like Mr. Universe - Dante Bichette had forearms like a colossus...and Bagwell could have spilt at the seams.

I mean, even a smaller guy like Larkin might have tried them out just to see what they could do for him. I know that sometimes guys get locked in, but hitting 33 homers in a season is a power hitting shortstop...something Larkin was certainly not.

Maybe he didn't like them, maybe he thought someone would catch him....all purely speculative and really stuff that I thought of when I saw him in the dugout for the American WBC team.

I am totally being a devil's advocate here - but for me, seeing a guy like Barry, who was pretty consistent as an average line drive hitter with 10-20 homers yearly become a power hitter the same year Caminiti won the MVP on dope makes me wonder a little bit.

Brady Anderson too - I would love to believe that his diet was great and his performance peaked that season...and the endorsement from all of his teammates helps - BUT...

[AWA85]

Coming from a major Larkin fan, my thoughts will probably be a little bias.

Larkin was never healthy at all. The season he hit 33, he played 152 games (very good for him). I believe in his prime years before this he only played in about a 100 games to a 130, followed by missing half a season after the 33 home run year.

Not exactly great ways to draw comparisons when a player misses that much time due to injury.

This just might be me, but if he was on the juice I think he would have been a lot healthier. In a 19 year career, only playing more than a 140 games 7 times stands out. (Off topic, but think this may be the one thing that hurts him in getting in the HOF, if he played a little more the numbers would have been automatic)

My final review, Larkin is clean.... time to review Mr. Pujols :cool:

[corsairs22]

On Larkin's 33 homers in 96: it's possible that the hitters who used steroids worked over pitching staffs so badly that even those hitters who were not on the juice had an easier time hitting.

[whatupyos]

[quote=earlywynnfan;130038]I agree, and I'm a big fan of Larkin's. This, to me, is the biggest problem with all the steroids: Nobody is immune to questions.

I'll give you another one: Last spring, I believe, some major magazine wrote how we all should root for Albert Pujols, because he's 1) a really nice guy, 2) an incredible player, and 3) CLEAN!! Now, no way am I sitting here saying Pujols is on anything. But I'm supposed to go to games and root him on like a diehard fan because I "know" he's clean? How do I know that??? I've never seen a Dominican this big before, have you? Not to be stereotypical, but aren't they supposed to be little guys? Heck, how many baseball players in general were this big before 1980? (I'll spot you Howard, Radatz, Conley, and Greenberg. Heck, Jimmie Foxx was known as the Beast and he wasn't close!)



I had a major league pitcher come to my class in college who player with Pujouls. He suspected that 80% of people in baseball and some point, both majors and minors used roids. He said Pujouls is a baheemath (sp?). Said he rearly see him in the gym. So, you have to wonder. I don't care what its listen on a baseball card. Someone said 6'2" 210lbs. I highly doubt that. McGwire was listen at 6'5" 250 but I heard people say he was more like 275. I wouldn't be surprised if Pujouls' name gets ousted at some point for PED's.

Aaron

[suave1477]

Ok I think some of you guys are getting out of hand with making Pujols out to be a "Baheemath"

Getting a little ridiculous!!

Ask Rob Steimetz from AuthenticGamers he has a picture on his website standing right next to Pujols and by the looks of it Rob is pretty close in size to Pujols and Rob doesn't come across as a "Baheemath"

And because some pitcher doesn't see Pujols working out doesn't mean much.

For the roids to work you have to work out. It is part of the regimin.

You don't just take roids and grow mass muscle watching tv. Doesn't work that way.

As far as Larkin, again I don't see a red flag go up just because a player had one above average season. Again if he had a monster season yes I would be concerned, but above average no way.

[shoremen44]

Interesting article from 2001...

"DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players"

As for size of people... my grandfather was 5'5" 145lbs... my father is 6'4" 235lbs... is he on roids? Genetics and darwinian evolution do play a factor here.

As for how many players were so big in 1980... probably not many... then again you go back to the glory days of the NFL and the lineman were like 225lbs...

Ruth who was supposed to be huge... was 6'2" 195lbs... I'm bigger than him.


Part of the reason these guys are bigger or more muscular than the average guy, is that its their job to be in shape... if you were paid millions to workout year round you would be pretty solid too.

I played lacrosse in college at a pretty high level... we practiced, ran, and worked out everyday... I was a ripped 220lbs... guess what... now, not so much working out... still the 220... not quite ripped.

[shoremen44]

article link...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_7_60/ai_75308165/pg_3

[bigtruck260]

Good article Bert.

I agree with that philosophy too. Anyone from this board that has seen me would not recognize me from my high school days. I was a college pitcher at 6 foot 1, 180 pounds...after I quit ball, I started lifting weights regularly and added 40 pounds of muscle in 2 years....6 foot 1, 220 -

Got married in 1997 and stopped working out - got a little fat...add another 40 pounds to 2009 and somehow, I kept growing in height too...so, now, I am a robust 6'2", 260. A long way from high school - and not one steriod (that I know of), though I did take some supplements.

The thread about Larkin is really about ANY athlete from the era. At least a few people in this thread are not 100% on Larkin - he may be as clean as they come...

The point is (again) - I'ts hard for me as a fan to exonerate every player from doing steriods from 1996-2003. Larkin was just one example.

[whatupyos]

Ok I think some of you guys are getting out of hand with making Pujols out to be a "Baheemath"

Getting a little ridiculous!!

Ask Rob Steimetz from AuthenticGamers he has a picture on his website standing right next to Pujols and by the looks of it Rob is pretty close in size to Pujols and Rob doesn't come across as a "Baheemath"

And because some pitcher doesn't see Pujols working out doesn't mean much.

For the roids to work you have to work out. It is part of the regimin.

You don't just take roids and grow mass muscle watching tv. Doesn't work that way.

As far as Larkin, again I don't see a red flag go up just because a player had one above average season. Again if he had a monster season yes I would be concerned, but above average no way.

I know how roids work. I've worked in 5 different gyms in my life. I know you just don't take them and magically grow. But it does help in the sense that a little bit of working out and you'll get big quick. Which was the point I believe the pitcher was trying to make. I've busted my butt my whole life trying to add muscle and I can't do it that well. I guess its a matter of believe who you want to believe. The pitcher is real credible. I'll trust him, who played with him and saw him in the clubhouse, over a photo with Rob. Pictures can be deceiving. Look at Brady Anderson. Not a huge guy, but he needed band aid's for all his cuts.

Aaron

[cardinalbaseballfan]

I normally enjoy lurking, but I couldn't believe given the topic and named players that this hasn't been brought up--here's a link to the SI cover story about Pujols from last week's issue. Regardless of your view, it's a well worth the read.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153053/index.htm

Back to lurking...

[cjclong]

Do we really want to throw all the players from the 1990's up till now under the bus because we know know a certain number of them used steroids and other PED's. We know a certain number of people in the population murder people or abuse children. So we could all speculate that this player or that player is a secret murderer. Their are two ways you can go, innocent until proven guilty or the system some other countries use that you must prove you are innocent. I guess we can have a post every week about a different player and speculate based on rumor or gossip whether they use PED.'s

[whatupyos]

Do we really want to throw all the players from the 1990's up till now under the bus because we know know a certain number of them used steroids and other PED's. We know a certain number of people in the population murder people or abuse children. So we could all speculate that this player or that player is a secret murderer. Their are two ways you can go, innocent until proven guilty or the system some other countries use that you must prove you are innocent. I guess we can have a post every week about a different player and speculate based on rumor or gossip whether they use PED.'s

Fair enough. You've got a valid point. I just wanted to do a rebuttal against Pujouls being clean when I have my doubts. That's my bad for even posting on here.

Aaron

[David]

The player's union, at behest of the players' they represented, prevented any and all testing and penalties for PEDs. They suppressed any and all information related to player use. This has proven to be a double edge sword for the union and their players. This lack of testing and evidence helps protect the users, but it also makes it impossible for non-users to prove they didn't use. I hate the 'under the bus' cliche, but the union's system threw the non-users under the bus to protect the users-- and the non-users themselves voted for this system.

Do I think this mess is unfair to the players? No I do not, because this is the system the players, including the non-users, insisted upon having. If you suppress information, don't bitch and moan ten years later because you can't prove your case because the information was supressed.

[David]

Say someone destroys (or suppresses) information, but afterwords realizes he needs that same information to prove his case. Far from being unfair, many would call the end result sweet justice. Or karma. Or ironic.

Why should I feel sorry for players who can't prove their innocence because there was no drug testing, when they voted against drug testing. Sometimes karma has a way of coming back and biting you in the ass.

[cjclong]

You say "they" voted against drug testing. Who is "they." Do you know which players were for it and which against it? If you do say so. Do you say its "karma" for a player who was for drug testing to be lumped in with those against. Sports opinion isn't a court of law and if it makes you happy and feel good to lump all players together and accuse players who have not used steroids with using them go right ahead.

[David]

I give players who pressed the union for testing and penalties due credit. Rick Helling is one who in union meetings for stood up against PEDs yearly and from early on. I do not lump Helling, for one, with players who voted down testing and drug penalties. Sadly, Helling's ideas were dismissed by the union executives and not supported by the vast majority of players. Duly note that union agreements can only be passed by majority vote of the players. Donald Fehr can't pass them on his own.

So, no, I don't think all the players voted for agreements that prevented drug penalties, bans and testing. But I know a majority did. And I know a player like Helling was rare minority in speaking against PEDs to his union.