Everyone assumes that Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn didn't use performance enhancing drugs, how can one be sure?

Question

Look at the facts:

Cal Ripken:
Ripken's consecutive game streak? Obviously the result of Cal's legendary work ethic. There's no way that Ripken was around steroids. Not in Baltimore. Not when he was surrounded by class guys like Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander and Rafael Palmeiro. Those three guys may have been teammates of Ripken's back in 1996 but Cal had nothing to do with steroids. Cal had nothing to do with Anderson's 50 homerun season. There's no reason to assume that Cal collected more total bases and posted a higher slugging percentage in 1996 than he had in the five previous seasons with the help of anything other than good old fashioned elbow grease.

Tony Gwynn:
In 1988, at the age of 28, Gwynn hit .313. The next year, his average went up to .336 but that blip was followed by seasons of .309, .317 and .317, the last coming when he was 32. But all of a sudden at 33, Gwynn apparently found something that allowed his average to skyrocket to .358. At 34, Gwynn hit .394. At 35, he hit .368 followed by seasons of .353 and .372. But Gwynn wasn't on steroids because there's a completely logical explanation why a 37 year old Tony Gwynn was hitting 59 points better than the 28 year old Tony Gwynn.

Fact: You need to come up with your own ideas and stop copying from wikipedia.

Fact: All of the stats I posted are accurate, both guys began to put up better numbers in their 30's.

Fact: Cal Ripken did share a locker room with Brady Anderson, Rafael Palmerio and Manny Alexander.

Answer 1

I agree that no player is above suspicion, but I don't think that you can attribute a higher average to HGH or Steroids. Gwynn was progressively fatter later on in his career with no definition in his physique. The way that he hit, he spread the ball around the field, so I don't think that HGH/Steroid muscles would make you hit more singles. He did not recover from any major injuries which seems to be what the players are claiming to be using it for.

Bottom line is that you could be right, but I think that considering Gwynn's workouts at the pizza parlors, it is not very likely that he did either of these drugs.

Interesting argument for Ripken.

I am going to not suspect players until they have some sort of other connection to bring suspicion though, because then any time a player plays well, it will be because of steroids. You just have to believe in some guys.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Everyone assumes that Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn didn't use performance enhancing drugs, how can one be sure?
Look at the facts:

Cal Ripken:
Ripken's consecutive game streak? Obviously the result of Cal's legendary work ethic. There's no way that Ripken was around steroids. Not in Baltimore. Not when he was surrounded by class guys like Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander and Rafael Palmeiro....

Answer 3

Cal Ripken Steroids

Answer 4

On the one hand, Ripken and Gwynn don't fit the profile because neither was a big slugger (even though Ripken played '92 onward in the bandbox of Camden Yards), both did have spikes around the expansion year of '93 (as someone else previously said), and, although Ripken had a few injuries late in his career, after the streak ended, Gwynn never really did.

Ripken was a lot like Al Kaline: Although he played in a hitters' park, and ended up with around 400 homers, he was more of a singles-doubles hitter, and ended up with 3,000 career hits. As did Gwynn, who was more of a Rod Carew and Wade Boggs type in the way he hit: Hardly any homers, but lots and lots and lots of singles.

And Gwynn has put on a LOT of weight, which goes against the steroid profile -- and also has me concerned. Tony, remember what happened to Kirby Puckett: Have some salads and grains, man!

On the other hand, both guys did go bald fairly early in their careers. No, I don't think either was a steroid user. But the fact that Brady Anderson wasn't on the Mitchell Report list makes it pretty suspect itself.

The irony of the Gehrig comment is that, one day, someone may figure out that steroids can be used as a treatment for the disease that bears Gehrig's name. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Answer 5

I think Tony Gwynn's jump in batting average from 1992 to 1993 was most due to the fact that 1993 brought expansion, which always means a jump in batting numbers. The league-wide average went up by 12 points that season, and Gwynn got the added benefit of having the Rockies in his division with an unbalanaced schedule. If you check the numbers between those two years, you'll see that he's not the only hitter whose numbers were positively affected by expansion.

As for Ripken, I've never been a fan and don't even enjoy defending him. However, I'd like to think that a good player using steroids would see a bigger jump especially in his power numbers. Ripken did go from 19 to 26 in Brady Anderson's monster season, but that was still well below his peak numbers, and his pitch selection sure doesn't seem to have benefitted from drug use to judge by his continued lower walk rate.

Answer 6

You all have good points, but neither of these guys took sterioids because :

Gwynn weighed 200 pounds of FAT. Sterioids come into the picture, were?

Lou Gherig had a streak like Ripken and he wasnt near sterioids. He just had natrul talent. Ripken also had a career high of 34 HR's in 1991. If he truly used sterioids with his workout, he would have had a career high of 44!

Answer 7

We can't be sure thanks to all the crap thas come to light as of late. It isn't fair to just start pointing fingers at people though. It is sad that people are looking at anyone that stood out as an excellent athelete and wondering if they took steriods.

I would like to believe that the majority of athletes didn't take steroids or HGH, but the truth is we will never know. The right thing to do would be to move forward and try to keep steroids and HGH out of the game from this point on.

Answer 8

Steroids biggest contribution is to strength - while it can help in other areas (particularly recovery from injuries for HGH), that's where one looks.

Gwynn's average of 7 HR/year is hardly indicative of strength training, and his frequent injuries (particularly late in his career) argue against the use of PED's for recovery purposes. The decreased number of strikeouts with the increases in batting average show that his improved hitting was the result of better plate discipline, rather than hitting the ball harder.

Since Ripken did have power, the arguments against his use of PED's are a bit weaker. The existence of a few spikes in his productivity (most notably, 1991) could argue for brief periods of use. Arguing against use were that, (1) overall, his numbers did show the expected downward trend as he aged, and (2) he spend most of his career as a shortstop, a position where dexterity is more important than strength - if he'd overbuild his muscles, he would have lost that; his defensive numbers were quite consistent from year to year, even in the "spike" years, which would indicate that he wasn't doing anything to his body that affected his speed or dexterity.

Answer 9

I agree, those numbers should raise a few eye brows. Every player for the last 25 years is under suspicion.

Answer 10

Sam, all I can say is that we can't go running around chasing shadows. There has been no evidence of any kind suggesting these two players ever used drugs. Not everyone who hits homeruns or has a superior work ethic takes drugs, and I don't believe any of us can or should take that quantum leap and assume anything. You can't look at numbers and come to a conclusion as to who took drugs and who didn't, and I am sure you realize that.