What do you think about HGH being linked to Rick Ankiel???

Question

He ordered a 12-month supply of HGH (Human Growth Hormone) in 2004, one year before MLB banned the substance. Ankiel didn't order anymore of the drug after it was banned. While the drug was not illegal in baseball at the time, I'm still disappointed that Ankiel used it. Although it was legal at the time, do you think he'll get in any kind of trouble?

Here is the link to the story:

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070907&content_id=2194104&vkey=news_stl&fext=.jsp&c_id=stl

Answer 1

He did nothing wrong. At the time, it was perfectly legal, both in the medical world and in the baseball world. It was prescribed due to ailments. It was normal. Over the counter cough medicine is banned substance for athletes too. Give me a break.

Certain medications and treatments that are DEVELOPED for certain causes, but that doesn't mean that it can't or isn't used for other causes as well.

Example: Breathene is an Asthma medication that stops asthma attacks in asthma patients. It is also prescribed to pregnant women to slow or stop certain contractions. But it is first and foremost an Asthma medication. Does that mean a pregnant woman, having contractions in her second semester shouldn't take it? No.

There is alot of faulty logic out there. It isn't our place to judge anyone, especially off of pure conjecture. Just stick to the facts.

1. It was prescribed to him, by a doctor, due to an ailment, which actually is common.

2. It was legal, by both baseball and the medical community, at the time in which he received it.

3. HGH isn't something you just store on the shelf. Even cortizone needs to be used by a certain date to be effective.

4. Before it was banned, he stopped receiving it.

5. He has done nothing or been caught doing anything illegal at anytime.

If drinking milk and taking a bubble bath before a game could help an athlete gain an unfair advantage, than you better believe milk would become a banned substance too.

Answer 2

This really kicks us Cardinals fans where it hurts even though he obtained them legally and appears to not have used them while they were a banned substance. All you can really hold against Ankiel is that it was immoral for him to do this. Sadly, the comparisons between him and Bonds are now going to be made, but in my mind there is a big difference. We appear to have all the evidence in this case as opposed to Bond's case where all the evidence is unable to be collected.

You may also want to pay attention to the fact that the story linked above mentions there is no known test for HGH, so if Barry had taken such a drug, this de-bunks the whole "he never failed a drug test" defense. I don't hate Bonds, but I do hate when his defenders use that line.

Answer 3

I don't have a problem with someone using it to help them come back from an injury...I just wish it had been prescribed by his doctor. I don't think he'll get in much trouble though...at least I hope not.

But for all of those saying they were "legal" in baseball, I'm sure there is a paragraph in the rules somewhere that speaks to "controlled substances" and committing crimes and alike. HGH is a controlled substance and was apparently obtained ILLEGALLY. I mean isn't this is how this came to light in the first place...an investigation into an illegal drug ring?

Answer 4

The hell with Barry Bonds. This is not the same thing. bonds is an asshole. He was using steroids illegally not the legal doctor prescribed HGH.

HGH wasn't banned at the time. Besides he was barely even in the major leagues at the time. He didn't do anything spectacular in 2004.

Ankiel returned to the Cardinals as a reliever in 2004, but the experiment was short-lived. He pitched in only five games, showing that he could throw strikes (nine strikeouts against one walk). But a year after his surgery, hitters found him to be easy pickings, and he finished with a 5.40 ERA.


Ankiel has fought numerous injuries in his career, and some athletes, such as Harrison, have said they used HGH to augment the body’s healing process. It is banned in every major professional sport as a performance-enhancing drug because it builds lean muscle mass, but there is no universally accepted test for it.

Answer 5

I would point out (as the article does) that Gary Matthews, Jr. also got named. He made a public statement that he has never taken HGH, or anything else, at any time. Since then, nobody has bothered to bring it up. Nobody has questioned anything he's done for the Angels.

If Ankiel makes the same type of statement, I would merely ask that the same attitude be afforded him.

This is different from the Barry Bonds situation, in that there are far more than just the one source that links him to taking the performance enhancing drugs. In the Matthews & Ankiel situations, we have ONLY the one "revelation".

Answer 6

If he used it when it was legal, then there's no way to punish him for a policy that was enacted later on. It's clear in the article that Ankiel only received shipments in 2004 and did not receive anymore after it was banned.

Legal or not, this puts a damper on the feel good story of the year in baseball: a pitcher nosedives in the prime of his career but works his way back to the Majors as a premier hitter. Comparisons to Roy Hobbs will stop now since it's clear he didn't do this naturally.

The backlash will be immediate. Baseball has just recovered from The Shady One breaking Hank Aaron's home run record. It was refreshing to read a story about a young man who fell so low and worked his way back up...but now, it's the same theme as it always is: cheating.

Very tragic.

Answer 7

he's an surprising baseball participant--that's all there is to it. There are actually not any records linking him to steroids/HGH after it replaced into banned. The declare is that he used it in 2004--the ban did not take consequence until 2005 and he wasn't making use of it anymore then. making use of steroids/HGH at any time isn't a clever determination, yet while he used it previously it replaced into banned, then he probable didn’t see something incorrect with it. He gained’t get in worry if he didn’t use it after the ban replaced into placed on it.

Answer 8

First of all, I'd like to know how someone's prescription medical records becomes public knowledge without violating HIPPA.

OK, now that that is out of the way, it just shows that EVERYONE is suspect and we can't get all moralistic about some players who we suspect used drugs and give a pass to others who we assume did not use them.

Just because he had a prescription for it and it was not specifically banned by major league baseball does not mean it is wrong. There is no medical reason for a healthy athlete to receive a drug which is approved for use in children with pituitary gland deficiencies.

It is interesting that he was getting the drug during the season that he lost his ability to pitch. I can't but wonder if it was part of the reason why he lost all his pitching control. Maybe his arm just got too strong too fast and he didn't know how to control it.

Answer 9

it is disappointing. The part everyone seems to be missing is they can only prove that he got it in 2004. Just because they do not have proof that he received more shipments after 2004 does not mean he was not using it. He could have gone to another supplier, he could have done something else. Why use it one year and then just stop? Like with Bonds, Ankiel will now always be suspect. It is too bad because baseball could have used a genuine hero but guess they will have to wait for someone else to come along because that hero is no longer Rick Ankiel.

Answer 10

How can anything like this be a surprise anymore? Many current players experimented with all kinds of things before the drug testing program or before certain drugs found their way to the banned substance list. The important thing now is that these players are now complying with the requirements of the drug program.