Skip to content

The Jose Bautista smear campaign continues

May 24, 2011, 8:25 AM EDT

Tampa Bay Rays v Toronto Blue Jays Getty Images

Jose Bautista hit his 19th home run last night, helping power the Blue Jays past the Yankees. The game and its aftermath is making me want to take a walk down memory lane.

For instance, remember back in 2009 when speculating that an unusual spike in a player’s performance could be steroids-related would get you torn a new one by virtually every credentialed writer in baseball and featured in a public pillorying on ESPN for your lack of journalistic ethics?

Wait, maybe I dreamed that, because there is no way that could have happened and this article in the Daily News could still appear without a similar outrage. That would be crazy!

Bautista is the power-hitting sensation the sport desperately needs these days.

Let’s hope he’s clean.

Sorry, but even in this drug-testing era, it’s impossible not to be suspicious when someone suddenly starts hitting the ball to the moon in his late 20s. Unfortunately, steroids forever hardened us to the romance of a late-bloomer like Bautista, especially when baseball still has no test for human growth hormone … Bautista is a great story. Let’s just hope he’s legit.

One more walk down memory lane: remember when, back in 2003 or so, baseball writers used to say that unless and until there is steroid testing in baseball, everyone will be under suspicion?  How then, is it possible, seven years after the imposition of steroid testing, for them to still be under the same suspicion?  Is there absolutely no basic, prima facie presumption of innocence? Is there not anything apart from the mere hitting of some home runs, that is required before this kind of skepticism and innuendo is warranted?

127 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 8:36 AM

    I think the term unusual spike in home runs is a bit off. How about unprecedented or unparalleled by a non steroid user. Also, the presumption of innocence does not apply to public opinion….it barely applies in a court of law these days. I don’t think there would be this type of skepticism if say he went from 16 to 32 to 45 to 54. But going from 16 to 54 is a bit suspicious. Especially at 29. We can now cue those who defend the guy who say that a change in stance and increased playing time led to the outbreak. Maybe so. However, to not view such a historic career progression with some type of skepticism is naive in my opinion.

    • Craig Calcaterra - May 24, 2011 at 8:39 AM

      “Also, the presumption of innocence does not apply to public opinion”

      Why not?

      • rawstalk - May 24, 2011 at 8:52 AM

        Craig, I’m not a journalist and haven’t been trained as such, but here’s my thoughts as a layman: I don’t see columns like this as being all that different from a couple of guys on barstools talking, or, rather, a bartender offering his opinion to his customers over a few beers. Does anyone read columns like that and take them as something other than an opinion, with the intent to entertain as much as to inform? My thought is that to think so is to sell the readers’ intelligence short. And if so, I would think that the bartender or columnist does have the right to speculate in a forum like this, whether or not there is evidence to back it up. It isn’t being presented as a fact, its being presented as speculation, and the writer pretty much says so. As for public opinion not being subject to the presumption of innocence, well, isn’t it a good thing for public opinion to be informed by all sources – intuition, cold hard facts, inductive and deductive reasoning, conversations at the bar, etc? Maybe I’m off in my bartender/columnist analogy – if so can you show me how? Thanks.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM

        Because it is opinion. Opinions do not have to be based on concrete fact. They can be based on speculation, gut feelings, prior experiences, etc. In criminal trials, I believe the prevailing theory behind “presumption of innocence” is that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free then to convict 1 innocent man, because depriving somebody unduly of freedom is perhaps worst thing that can be bestowed upon somebody. Forming opinions about somebody does not deprive them of freedom or liberty, hence a lesser standard applies.

      • Craig Calcaterra - May 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM

        rawstalk: Because guys like Harper premise their entire existence and career on being authorities of some kind.

        Maybe I’d take it differently if, at any hint of criticism, major newspaper columnists (not necessarily Harper, but just about every other one with whom I’ve had experience) didn’t defend themselves on the basis of specialized knowledge or experience and claim their superiority based on their adherence to journalistic ethics that mere mortals can’t grasp.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 9:29 AM

        Let’s not forget it could be Bautista’s age 27 (as his numbers really started to improve at the end of 2009). Although the age 27 spike has been debunked, it’s still prior experience that leads to believe it.

        People also predicted that Bautista would break out last year. Perhaps not that much, but stat-heads loved the guy. And looking at his numbers, it is clear that he changed his approach. Look at the stats:

        Walk rates are up.
        BG% rates WAY down.
        FB% rates WAY up.

        I’d hate for you to use actual facts and not just presumptive facts to base your opinions on.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 9:41 AM

        Guy using fangraphs,
        At the end of 2009, he was 28 but I won’t suable about a year. Here is the only stat that applies: in said season of 2009 he had 13 homers in 336 at bats. In 2010 he hit 54 homers in 569 at bats. If you extrapolate the 2009 season to the same amount of at bats in the 2010 season, it comes to roughly 20. Hence, going from 2009 to 2010, he had a roughly 275% increase in homeruns. Statistically the 2009 season was consistent with his career norm with 2010 being an out-lier. People love to point out Roger Maris at this point, but that argument does not hold water. From 1960-1961 at 26 Maris had a roughly 66% increase in homeruns (39 to 61) without adjusting for at bats (he had around 100 less in 1960).

      • proudlycanadian - May 24, 2011 at 9:47 AM

        In September of 2009, Bautista began to play regularly for the Jays and hit 10 home runs that month. Up until then he had been a bench player in Toronto.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM

        The Age 27 thing was sarcasm, which would have been subtle had I not added the line about it being debunked. Reading comprehension aside, looking at the additional number on fangraphs, what are your thoughts on the increased bb%, fb% and decrease in gb%? Or are you just going to ignore any sort of math/stats that could help show why this is legit?

    • Joe - May 24, 2011 at 8:41 AM

      In other words, baseball’s testing program is useless in your opinion.

    • proudlycanadian - May 24, 2011 at 8:41 AM

      At it again are you? Your rants generate so many thumbs down votes that it is obvious that very few people who use this forum buy into your viewpoint.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 8:48 AM

        To be fair, the headline article just begs for a rant like that. I am aware that my viewpoint on this is not popular; it really doesn’t bother me. All I am saying is that when one sees a career progression so statistically skewed like Bautista’s is it not fair to be skeptical?

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 8:51 AM

        Not really…not when the argument makes no sense logically. Unless you just think that HGH instantly makes you hit home runs, there is no reason to think Bautista is using HGH. The article implies that there is no test for HGH so he could be using it. But how would HGH be helping him? He is 30, in his prime, and it is freaking May!!!!!

    • The Common Man/ - May 24, 2011 at 8:47 AM

      Bautista rebuilt his swing in Toronto. He also was helped significantly last year by his home ballpark. This has been well documented. To suggest otherwise without proof is tantamount to slander. Shame on you.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 8:55 AM

      Who said he is using HGH? I certainly didn’t. It would make no sense for baseball players to use HGH for performance enhancement. They aren’t cyclists or marathon runners.

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 8:59 AM

        I was more talking about what the author of the article is saying…

        “Unfortunately, steroids forever hardened us to the romance of a late-bloomer like Bautista, especially when baseball still has no test for human growth hormone”

        If you think he is actually using Steroids, then you are being more cynical that I thought. Do you actually think he is beating the testing for steroids somehow?

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 9:05 AM

        To be honest, I don’t know. People have found ways to beat drug tests before. The development and implementation of designer steroids is an evolving field. It should not be stated that MLB’s testing practices are foolproof. Look at Manny. He tested positive for that female fertility drug that steroid users take when coming off of a cycle. So, one can make the logical assumption that he was using steroids over the past couple years. But, where was the positive test that showed that?

      • pestiesti - May 24, 2011 at 9:12 AM

        I think you are thinking of EPO or CERA. Cyclists aren’t really known for taking hGH.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 9:17 AM

        Good point. My apologies for the mistake.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 9:54 AM

      That is irrelevant as it is incorporated into the totality of stats for his 2009 season. Which was consistent with his previous seasons (~20 Hr/162 games played).

      • bradwins - May 24, 2011 at 12:11 PM

        I’m probably not quite as skeptical as you are, but for the most part I haven’t disagreed with much of what you’ve said here. I don’t like the idea of accusing someone without sufficient evidence, but I also don’t like the idea that it is somehow unethical or wrongheaded to ask questions, either.

        But on this point I definitely disagree with you. In what way is it irrelevant that he began to produce at his current rate upon becoming an everyday player, especially when a leading explanation for the improvement in his production is tied to him becoming an everyday player?

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:29 PM

        Bradwins….if I said that it was irrelevant that he became an everyday player, I apologize. Playing certainly does matter. What I meant was that he had enough at bats in those years, so dismissing them as “well he wasn’t playing” would be erroneous, in my opinion. That and I was taking my projections on his stats based upon a 162 game season. Sorry for the confusion. In retrospect I should have been more clear.

    • bjavie - May 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM

      Dude, everyone has the right to be skeptic, but when you voice your skepticism, it becomes an accusation.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM

      Don’t know why you have to use thinly veiled criticism of me. I am trying to have a constructive debate not resort to petty criticism. Your attempt at sarcasm was not clear to me. Sorry but it is often hard to detect intent and sarcasm via a computer screen.
      So he is walking more…Figured as much. So pitchers are pitching around him more combined with a better eye. He is hitting the ball in the air more and on the ground less. Ok….and those that are going in the air are traveling further then before.

      • cur68 - May 24, 2011 at 10:58 AM

        “those that are going in the air are traveling further then before.”
        No, monkeyarmy, in terms of homers they go the same distance just more of them are going that distance. It’s not his power that’s improved it’s his eye and ball contact. He’d always hit homers just not as many. They all travel about ~420 feet depending on pitch speed, wind conditions, and humidity.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 12:08 PM

        Your understanding of advanced metrics certainly leaves something to be desired and that’s probably you not wanting to research anything outside of the pseudoscience of baseball. (He’s hitting more homeruns: he must be juicing, etc) If you’d take the time to do just a little research, you’d find that groundball% has a direct correlation with homeruns.. So when someone decreases their groundball%, they will have more success. There is no correlation between player strength and groundball%. Your summary of “Ok, those balls that are going in the are traveling further than before” is 1) A poor summary that doesn’t really establish a stance 2) Has no proof at all and is a faulty generalization (without even any sort of proof to back up your logic failure) 3) Doesn’t account for the change in groundball% and other sorts of park factors.

        My point? There is no proof at all that Bautista is juicing outside of the association fallacy.* There are other proofs that this is legit (such as studying baseball statistics, listening to coaches and scouts, etc). If you really want to debate constructively, quit padding your arguments with logic failures. It’s a disservice to everyone.

        * (So I don’t have to explain this later)

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:22 PM

        Mr. Advanced Metrics,
        I actually believe that you meant an inverse or negative correlation between ground ball percentage and home runs. A direct correlation implies that as ground balls increase, so would home runs. If you are going to go all sabermetrics please use the proper statistical terms. Furthermore, I looked at the fangraphs your link provided. It looks like previous to this outburst he hit around 42% on the ground compared to 32% now. Based on 600 at bats, that is 60 more balls in the air over a season. So, given his previous average of 20 HR/162 games to roughly equal the 54 of last season, over half of those balls now in the air would have to be home runs. Even to this sabermetric novice that seems pretty unlikely. In fact, last season only 20% of his flyballs were homers, so the fact that he is hitting the ball more in the air accounts for roughly 12 more homers. Compared to a career average of roughly 12%. So indeed his flyballs are going further, like I said which you scoffed at. So, it is your assertion that the “missing” 22 homers can be explained by external circumstances such as swing change, playing environment, plate tactics.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:24 PM

        Furthermore, Mr. Tim’s Neighbor why are you so condescending in your debating? I have not once tried to demean you or insult your intelligence. Yet, you seem to want to engage in passive aggressive behavior.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM

        Apologies on terminology.

        I say this as someone who is definitely not a mathmatician, but your dissecting of the numbers as you are is definitely not how to properly study data. You’re cherry picking. You can’t just look at some numbers and adjust and divide, etc and not look at other numbers and expect the math to add up. The biggest difference between this year and last year is BABIP. Bautista had a BABIP of .233 last year and a career average of .272. He is getting luckier on balls in play this year. I would absolutely expect this to regress through the year, so his pace likely won’t look like this all year. Also, you can look at his K%. He’s well below his career average. I would expect that to normalize a bit as well. Bautista is better than he was and he’s even getting a bit lucky now.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 12:40 PM

        Apologies for the subtle mockery and sarcasm. However, me calling you out on logic failures and poor assumptions isn’t being passive aggressive. That’s just pointing out the short-comings in your argument. I will admit that I assumed that you wouldn’t look any of this up because of past experience. I was wrong in doing that. I shouldn’t make a hasty generalization on you any more than you should make a hasty generalization on Bautista.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:42 PM

        Tim’s Neighbor,
        Fair play. Your point is well taken. To be honest, I haven’t studied sabermetrics or anything like that to have a significant idea on what some of the correlations are. What I did see when I looked at the link you provided was somebody who had dramatically improved. You attribute it to a combination of things that you already mentioned. I am not sure what to attribute it to. I respect your opinion and thank you for engaging me in debate.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM

        Regardless, I think I’ve done more than enough to prove that there are factors that suggest that Bautista’s improvements are legit. What have you given as proof that he is juicing? All you have is an opinion with no sort of logic to back it up.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM

        Tim’s Neighbor,
        No need to apologize. People have said a lot worse. Like I said, I do respect your opinion. I will look up stuff especially when links are provided. I am a scientist after all. For some reason, his dramatic increase in production is fascinating to me. I was searching for a plausible way to explain such a surge. For the record, I hope he is not on steroids. I would love to have my doubts cast aside.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM

        Well Tim’s neighbor short of having a positive test, there really isn’t a means to provide evidence. Like I said somewhere in this morning long debate, I don’t know whether he is or isn’t. I did not set out to prove that he is on steroids, merely to show that it is possible and that there is nothing wrong with being skeptical. As I said immediately above, I hope he isn’t. It is an absolutely amazing story and I don’t want to see it ruined.

      • Tim's Neighbor - May 24, 2011 at 12:57 PM

        Even a sarcastic jerk like me can like that.

        There’s a ton of research on advanced metrics. Fangraphs is a great place to start. is another good one.

        There are certainly worse ways to spend a morning off than arguing baseball.

      • seanmk - May 24, 2011 at 12:58 PM

        the whole point of this exercise is he is being accused with no proof. it’s a witch hunt that people will never be satified with the answers given is is dishonest as a media outlet to speculate. here is a graph form of bautista’s change in approach

    • yettyskills - May 24, 2011 at 11:32 AM

      This is what is Naive….
      People thinking that Bautista is on some sort of Cheaterade.

      To actually think he is on something you must think…

      He is the ONLY MLB ballplayer on a form of Cheaterade.

      Because is the past 200 Games he is the ONLY MLB ballplayer coming close to 50 HR type power.

      So ya types want the rest of us to believe that Bautista is the ONE and ONLY player using this worderful new Cheaterade that…
      Doesnt gain weight
      Doesnt grow heads
      Doesnt shrink ears

      Riiiiiiiiight, Jose Bautista has the only supply and is hording it to himself for the past 200 games.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM

        What you describe is actually the antithesis of naive.

      • paperlions - May 24, 2011 at 12:09 PM

        No, what he describes is the paragon of naivete. It is hyper-naive to think that one and only one player would find some way to cheat that also improves performance tremendously and somehow he isn’t sharing (or those that designed his program are not doing so). If you really think that, being called naive is polite.

        Besides, there is still no evidence that using PED help you hit with more power. Not a single study has been able to detect any such signature. PEDs may help by keeping players in the lineup (which is extremely valuable), but they don’t help the rate of production.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:26 PM

        Ok Paperlions, and you call my reasoning the “paragon of naivete”.

  2. Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 8:41 AM

    How does HGH help a guy hit Home Runs in the months of April and May at 30 years old? Is it like Popeye…he pulls out the can of HGH, his forearms grow 8 inches in circumference, and then after he “eats his HGH” he goes out and hits Home Runs??? I just don’t think it works that way. HGH helps you recover from injury, right? Or fend off the effects of old age. I would be far more surprised if you told me that Bautista is using HGH than if you told me that Cal Ripken did.

    • Justin - May 24, 2011 at 10:48 AM

      Wow excellent point. You also pointed out a problem that baseball has in that it sadly is becoming synonymous with steroids and HGH. Looks at Favre’s career and how long he played and yet no one even mentions steroids. He was just fortunate and durable. And also you have 300 lb guys that run 4.6 40-yard dashes and they are just freakishly athletic. It also seems a bit off.

      Baseball need to do something to kick that presumption but I am afraid that the only thing that will is time (

  3. mike11212 - May 24, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    Isn’t “Lets hope he’s clean” the first thing on all of our minds when a player goes from ok to GREAT! I doubt they are eating frosted flakes.

    My list of lets hope they are clean players: (active)

    Albert Puljos
    Curtis Granderson
    Adrian Gonzalez
    Jose Bautista
    few others

    My List of Lets hope they were clean players: (in active)
    Barry Bonds
    Jose Canseco
    Roger Cleamnes
    Carlos Delgado
    Ricky Henderson
    Cal Ripkin
    this list will get too long if I continue.

    I love baseball but I am not dumb. I doubt every players ability. If you were an OK player for most of your career or were super skinny and suddenly one day you wake up and your a home run hitter i am going to suspect something.

    • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM

      Mike, even now, when there is steroid testing? If you don’t trust the league now, then you are just being cynical for the sake of being cynical. And if you think that HGH helps you hit home runs, you are just flat out wrong. Again, if someone has an off-season to bulk up 50 pounds of muscle, a la Lenny Dykstra, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, etc. at a time when there is no steroids testing, then yeah, be skeptical all you want. But in 2011, when there is steroid testing, there is no reason to think that a 30 year old, in the prime of his career hitting home runs in MAY is using HGH. And even he were, explain to me how it is going to help him hit more home runs?

      • bigharold - May 24, 2011 at 11:05 AM

        “Mike, even now, when there is steroid testing?”

        Absolutely! There is an old saying; you build a better mouse trap you get smart mice.

        Remember, as far as anybody knows Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens never failed a test for PEDs. In fact Bonds was caught up in all this because the guy he was getting his PEDs from was caught. And, while it may no longer be the case, I think what he was using was undetectable at the time even had there been testing. What’s to say that there isn’t some other PED regime out there right now that is impossible or nearly impossible to detect. There are ways, even today, PEDs that can be used without detection. And, there is some serious questions about just how robust is MLB testing program anyway.

        I really hope Bautisata is clean but given what we’ve learned in the last ten years I don’t think you will see too many power hitters getting off without this very same speculation being applied to them. Especially, ones that have a sudden burst of power as is the case with Bautista. It’s unfortunate that it is the state we find ourselves in but the fault here is not with the fans, .. it’s with the players, .. probably thousands of them over the years, .. that decided using PEDs was acceptable for whatever rational that fit their needs.

        All MLB has done is put in place a better mouse trap. There are guys getting around it as evidenced by the fact that there are STILL guys getting caught. Unless you think ALL the MLB players that have used PEDs recently are getting caught, .. which is highly unlikely, .. then it follows that here are still guys using and therefore betting the testing. This is far less a smear campaign against Bautista than the reality of MLB today and in the foreseeable future. You can’t absolutely prove a negative in this case so there always will be and should be doubt. If you get the opportunity rent or watch a documentary; Bigger Faster Stronger. For baseball fans the take away is that PEDs continue to be pervasive in all sports, including baseball and we are only at the very beginning of what may well be a revolution in PEDs and their influence in sports.

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM

        Who got caught? MannyBManny. OK, he was always a weird cat who probably never read the memo about what could get him suspended or just didnt care. Who else of major importance?

        Look, I don’t care what anyone says, if this guy found the way to beat the system, there would be 200 BETTER players doing the same thing and having BETTER results than Bautista. No offense, cur, but after 2009, Bautista was nothing more than a scrub…a .235 hitter with 59 CAREER home runs. He did something to his swing or to his approach at the plate that helped him. What he definitely, 100% certainly did NOT do is find some wonder drug and buy it all up for himself to use without anyone else knowing about it. That’s just stupid.

      • cur68 - May 24, 2011 at 12:29 PM

        “No offense, cur, but after 2009, Bautista was nothing more than a scrub…a .235 hitter”

        Chris; that’s an accurate summary of JB so no offense taken. A total whittle till he accepted some help, got some coaching, playing time, and a regular job in the out field. The Pirates must be just sick they missed out on the guy.

      • bigharold - May 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM

        “He did something to his swing or to his approach at the plate that helped him. What he definitely, 100% certainly did NOT do is find some w”He did something to his swing or to his approach at the plate that helped him. What he definitely, 100% certainly did NOT do is find some wonder drug and buy it all up for himself to use without anyone else knowing about it. That’s just stupid.”

        Then what change did he make? What profound adjustment did he make that made such a HUGE difference? Since neither you, nor anybody else, have been able to identify it the notion that some adjustment in either his approach at the plate or his stance or his swing has lead to this miraculous transformation is mere speculation. As valid as the speculation that perhaps it’s not all good karma, better mechanics and a positive attitude. Perhaps it’s at least in part a more clandestine pharmaceutical approach? I certainly hope not but it is a distinct possibility. The real point here is that given all the revelations regarding the length and breadth of PED use in the last ten years to think that PED use has been eradicated would at best be naïve or at worst be “..just stupid.” And, if you think MLB testing policy is anything to write home about, you are misinformed;

        I did not say that Bautista, or anyone else for that matter, used PEDs. I said given the circumstances the speculation about his possible use is warranted. Moreover it’s necessary to help limit the influence that PEDs will continue to have on MLB. The use PEDs and all the ramifications that go along with it, including unsubstantiated speculation, … well that toothpaste is already out of the tube and there is no getting it back in.

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 1:01 PM

        You have to explain how there isn’t 200 other guys with 20+ home runs right now. If Bautista is using, then there are guys way better and more talented than him using. And if they were using, then that would mean they would be doing better. Yet they are not.

        Assuming he is using steroids, can you come up with a reasonable explanation for why Bautista is the only guy with 60+ home runs the last 162 games????

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM

        As I recently stated below, maybe he knows a rouge chemist. Although it is probably more likely that somebody associated with him knows the rouge chemist. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they have become more prevalent in society.

      • bigharold - May 24, 2011 at 1:34 PM

        “You have to explain how there isn’t 200 other guys with 20+ home runs right now. If Bautista is using, then there are guys way better and more talented than him using.”

        No I don’t because I never said that he or anybody was using PEDs. What I’m saying is that; all things considered speculating that PEDs was the direct reason or one of the reasons was fair. And, if I wanted to speculate further as to exactly how with MLB testing program, (such as it is), in conjunction with the astounding increase in productivity I could easily render reasonable circumstances that would explain it. I certainly could provide a better speculative narrative with regard to PED use accounting for this phenomenal improvement than any suggested about Bautista changing his approach at the plate, better mechanics, eating right getting to bed early, or going to church regularly.

        PEDs have, still are and will continue to be in MLB for the foreseeable future. Ignoring that possibility will lead to nothing but more widespread PED use. Part of it will be speculation regarding who is or isn’t or did or didn’t use them. And, that speculation will be one of the things that will help minimize future use because it will send a message to players that the fans are still watching and the majority doesn’t like it. Bautista isn’t being smeared he just the latest slugger to have his credentials questioned. Considering that he “.. was nothing more than a scrub…” before last season it not at all unreasonable. And, it’s the players fault so there is a certain karma to it.

      • sawxalicious - May 24, 2011 at 8:05 PM

        @ big harold:
        This is an article that details the exact changes in Bautista’s stance, mechanics, timing and approach at the plate…should be helpful…

    • proudlycanadian - May 24, 2011 at 9:05 AM

      The smear campaign goes on. Why not smear Maris and Mantle while you are at it. Why don’t you ask if they were they using greenies? There were no tests for greenies in those days.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 9:11 AM

        Yeah, people rendering their opinions on blogs are engaging in a subversive campaign to ruin his credibility. It’s not like I am renting billboard space in Toronto. Amphetamine use and abuse was a real problem in baseball for a long time. It would not surprise me if many of the games greats were taking them.

    • lardin - May 24, 2011 at 9:19 AM

      Im with you, Call me a cynic if you want to, but after what sports in general have been through in the last 10-15 years I doubt everyone. In my opinion most players are clean, but there is that little voice in the back of my brain that says “wait a minute.” We have seen it over and over again with some of the worlds best athletes, not just baseball players. There are football players ( Shawn Merriman and Bill Romanowski), Olympic Athletes (Ben JOhnson, Marion Jones) and possibly and probably Lance Armstrong. I want very much to believe that ALL athletes are clean. That, hey set records and win championships without cheating. But that is just not the case.

    • yettyskills - May 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM

      Even Jose Canseco has said he does not think Rickey Henderson did Roids.

      • sawxalicious - May 24, 2011 at 8:22 PM

        I think Rickey’s ego would have gotten in the way of using ‘roids…he was real high on Rickey being the best Rickey he could be…I think if he was using ‘roids, his (single season) numbers may have been even crazier…his longevity with relative good health suggests he was au naturale

    • kcfanatic - May 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM

      I really don’t care if they are/were clean. I enjoy the game. I know there are cheaters in the hall of fame. From guys taking uppers, coke, speed to help them stay up and concentrate…to roiders…to guys steeling signs…to spitballs…to corked bats…to sandpaper. Cheating has always been in the game. I don’t like it. I accept it. Unless we know every person that ever used steroids, we can not hold it against the guys we think or know did them.

  4. vikesfansteve - May 24, 2011 at 9:15 AM

    Wouldn’t be surprised if in the years to come Puljos was caught doing something or Bautista but who cares. Maybe it’s creatine or he just learned to hit a slider or a hanging curve.
    Or maybe he is like big Papi who couldn’t hit the inside pitch for power with the Twins then goes to the Sox & starts banging bombs to the opposite field & it turns out the reason he went from fat & slow to fast & powerful was PED’s.
    Ever watch Real Sports with Bryant Gumble. They did a story on Roids in MLB years before Canseco broke the lid off & the clean players were saying that they feel 70% of the league was on some kind of PED.
    So you have a situation everything is ignored & pushed under the rug. Then when it is exposed the situation has become nobody is trusted.
    It’s Sammy Sosa corking his bat because he can’t juice anymore.
    Who is guilty, who is innocent. Who cares.

    • billtpa - May 24, 2011 at 2:05 PM

      “Or maybe he is like big Papi who couldn’t hit the inside pitch for power with the Twins then goes to the Sox & starts banging bombs to the opposite field & it turns out the reason he went from fat & slow to fast & powerful was PED’s.”

      That’s a baseless, utterly ridiculous and ignorant assumption.

  5. mikedi33 - May 24, 2011 at 9:31 AM

    It is really wrong to blame the writer or fans who wonder if he is using PEDs. Bottom line is the players brought the suspicion upon themselves and unfortunately innocent players are caught up in it, I agree with the writer I hope he is clean because it is a great story however it is far from unreasonable not to wonder. And yes players are still trying. Look at Manny.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - May 24, 2011 at 9:46 AM

      People seem to be missing Craig’s point. In ’03 writers were complaining that people couldn’t be above suspicion because until there was testing we’d have no way of knowing who was and who wasn’t using. So following that logic, once there was testing, no one should be making accusations like this [so hypocrisy #1]

      Then, a blogger named Jerod Morris pens a piece trying to come up with any way to say Raul Ibanez’s start was due to something other than steroids, and can’t, and gets crucified by the media. Writers blast Morris and say it’s unprofessional for someone to accuse someone of this without any proof, and that they’d never do it in their job because they have integrity. [hypocrisy #2 considering how many have done the same thing with regards to Bautista]

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM

        I understand Craig’s point and agree that it is unprofessional for paid journos and bloggers to make unfounded accusations. It is their profession and there are standards that must be applied. However, I believe for the random fan it is ok to view such things with skepticism and comment as such. I am not claiming to be an authority on the subject, just rendering my opinion with whatever facts (some would say lack of facts) at my disposal. I started the comments on a path away from Craig’s main point, so for that I take responsibility.

      • electstat - May 24, 2011 at 10:40 AM

        At issue is the concept that all sports writers operate in this hidden society where they are all forced to believe the exact same thing when another writes a story.

  6. curr68 - May 24, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    I’m currently launching my own personal campaign to smear Jose Bautista…with Cheez Whiz. After which I plan to devour him like like a sweaty, jockstrap-clad cheesesteak…

  7. pmcenroe - May 24, 2011 at 9:45 AM

    I’m not a Jays fan, but I live in Toronto and watch/go to a lot of their games, and lord knows I’ve seen Bautista do way too much damage against my Twins already this year. Personally I do not think he is taking any PEDs. What I’ve seen from him is a guy who can take one of, if not the biggest hacks in the game and he’s able to square damn near everything up with linedrive backspin. Do I think its sustainable for the next 5 years? No. But for now the guy is amazing to watch. Also check out hit tracker, between last year and this year his avg. distance seems to be in the 400-410 range, not exactly the typical steriod era moonshots.

    • proudlycanadian - May 24, 2011 at 9:50 AM

      His home run last night was a line drive over the center field fence. The distance to center field is 399 feet.

  8. Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM

    Somebody explain to me how Jose Bautista is the only guy in MLB doing steroids. I mean, seriously guys. Do you really think if there was some magical drug you could take that is not detectable by the tests that more than one guy would be using it? Do you really think that Jose Bautista bought the last of the “wonder drug” that allows you to hit more Home Runs than anybody else? Are you freaking kidding me!!!! You guys are nuts. I could see if everyone was hitting Home Runs again…I would at least understand the whole “There must be some wonder drug out there that is helping player x, y, z, a, b, c etc” But when it is ONE GUY, you can’t possibly think it is steroids. How could it be?

    Like I said…to even have a doubt about Bautista means that you think he found the “wonder drug” that allows you to more than double your home run production while other home run hitters like Fielder, Howard, Pujols, etc. are simply going to watch. Give me a break.

    Don’t forget this truism…”Cheating is contagious”.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM

      So you find it inconceivable that he found a way to beat the system and avoid detection? 500 clean drug tests later, close friends of Lance Armstrong are saying that they saw him using PED’s while he was testing negative. Are the drug testing practices and procedures of MLB infallible? Where was Manny’s positive test for elevated testosterone?

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 11:06 AM

        No, I find it inconceivable that he IS THE ONLY GUY IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES who found a way to beat the system and avoid detection. Like I said, if he found this wonder drug, that beats detection, wouldn’t there be guys, bigger, stronger, and, to be frank, BETTER players, who would be even BETTER than Bautista using the same drug? Remember…Sosa and McGwire hit all those home runs and there was a guy who was 10 times the player either one of them were getting more and more jealous as the season went on. So what did he do? Took the same drugs and took what they did to a level not seen since Babe Ruth. How? Because he was BETTER THAN THEM. If Bautista found this wonder drug that avoids detection, wouldn’t other guys who were better than him before 2010 try the same drug and do better?

        Relax about Bautista boys…he’s clean. 100%. There’s no reason to think otherwise in today’s game.

      • paperlions - May 24, 2011 at 12:17 PM

        The difference is that in cycling pretty much everyone says that pretty much everyone was cheating….it wasn’t just Lance beating the system, everyone was doing it, it was systemic.

        Scouts seem pretty convinced that, for the most part, PEDs are out of the game, they think this because they don’t see the quick changes in player’s bodies that they used to see….they see a more natural progression of maturation.

        Allegations (which is exactly what public speculation is) should be based on something more than being good.

        Why not think Bourn is on steroids? He leads the league in SB and there is much greater evidence that steroids improves speed than hitting ability.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 11:16 AM

      It is naive to think that there are not designer steroids that are solely available to beat detection. It is essentially analogous to the concept of designer drugs. Skilled chemists have the ability to modify existing compounds that are concerned illegal to compounds that produce the same effect but are not on the list of controlled substances. Granted, there is a considerable amount of health risk involved in such a practice but is IS done. Likewise, skilled chemists have the ability to specifically design steroids that are not detectable. Your point about why everybody else using them is valid though. Any answer I might give for that would just seem ridiculous.

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM

        “Your point about why everybody else using them is valid though. Any answer I might give for that would just seem ridiculous.”

        Thus the argument that there is even the smallest possibility that he is using steroids is just plain ludicrous.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM

        I don’t subscribe to that line of reasoning. Just because I cannot come up with a scenario does not mean that such a scenario does not exist. I don’t think you can categorically say that he is not on steroids.

  9. tuftsb - May 24, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    Perhaps he made a change at the plate – which he did according to this article by a Texas Rangers former-scout….

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:17 AM

      Yeah, I’ve read the stories. Perhaps that is it. Maybe changing swing mechanics at age 28 morphed him into one of the greatest non-steroid home run hitters ever. It is plausible and I am not being sarcastic. It would also be unprecedented and downright amazing. My point is that it is equally plausible that something unsavory is taking place.

      • seanmk - May 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM

        ditto to curtis granderson, who has never hit more then 30 home runs in a season. at least bautisa has done it before. what’s your excuse for granderson? by your logic it’s steroids or a untestable drug, because it can’t be a swing change or change in approach at the plate despite the evidence of it

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM

        When did Bautista hit more then 30 home runs in a season before last year? Granderson hit 30 a couple seasons ago. Also, have you seen right field in Yankee Stadium?Routine outs turn into homeruns. Also, the season is not over yet. I don’t want to base anything on 50 games. Things tend to even out, like when Ibanez was killing the ball then slumped.

      • seanmk - May 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM

        yes and curtis didn’t hit like this last year while playing in yankee stadium, so what is different this year? We aren’t basing bautista on 50 games we have more evidence then that. also for a scouting report on bautista from when he was drafted

  10. tuftsb - May 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM

    OK, try this – a player who had been in the majors for 6 seasons and never hit more than 20 home runs hits 44 in his 7th season – a year in which he turns 28 – after going on a workout regimen in the off-season. He becomes the best offensive player in the league, winning two batting titles and a home run title in next four seasons, going from a line drive hitter to a power guy.


    You just busted Carl Yastrzemski, circa 1967-70.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:40 AM

      Excellent post and point. However, Yaz was always a good hitter and there was a negative correlation between doubles and home runs in his case. Meaning that when home runs increased, doubles decreased. Whereas, Bautista was a mediocre at best hitter, who had a significant increase in both doubles and home runs, indicating a startling increase in production. Also, Yaz’s initial dramatic increase in home runs came at 27 not 29.

  11. tuftsb - May 24, 2011 at 10:31 AM

    Or this – you are a .500 pitcher and play with a team loaded with players mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Up until the age of 28 you’re truly mediocre, but you win 20 games for the first time as a 34 year old (win 20 three times in your thirties) and your best K total goes from 186 to a remarkable 319 as a 30 year old


    You just busted Curt Schilling.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM

      Not sure how Schilling was mediocre until he was 28, but whatever. And it is called learning to pitch. Pitching is a craft.

      • spudchukar - May 24, 2011 at 12:54 PM

        Hitting is a more difficult craft to master.

  12. nps6724 - May 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    In 2010, he hit 21 away HR and 33 home HR. So far in 2011, he’s hit 9 away HR in 22 games and 10 home HR in 17 games.

    In 2010, the Blue Jays as a team hit 107 away HR and 150 home HR (58.36%). If you remove Jose Bautista’s HR, they hit 86 away HR and 117 home HR (57.63%).

    In 2011, the Blue Jays have hit 23 away HR in 25 games and 29 home HR in 22 games. If we take that same home HR rate and apply it to 25 home games, you get 33 HR. That’s 58.93%. Removing Bautista’s HR and you have 14 away HR and 19 home HR. Again applying the home HR rate to 25 games and you have 21.6 HR. Even rounding down to 21 HR gives you 60% on the dot.

    The team overall is hitting 58-60% of their HR at home, whether you count Bautista’s or not. It seems to me if Bautista was such an anomaly, their overall home HR % would drop if his numbers were removed.

    Maybe, just maybe, his change in stance + a HR-friendly home park + hitting his prime has been the answer.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 10:45 AM

      As I said above, that is a very real possibility. I am just saying that it is equally possible that something unsavory is going on.

      • nps6724 - May 24, 2011 at 10:48 AM

        I don’t disagree there is a possibility, but the numbers (these and the ones Tim’s Neighbor showed above) are adding up too much in favor of him being clean.

  13. electstat - May 24, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    Perhaps they are still think it’s happening because players are still getting caught using.

  14. cshearing - May 24, 2011 at 10:41 AM

    To me, he just does not look like he does steroids. Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, Clemons, even Pettite…they all looked huge. huge necks, thigh muscles, etc. Does Bautista look any different than he did 4-5 years ago? Not in the least. I do not know of a steroid that can jack you up without actually adding mass. It must be some kind of secret 4th dimension steroid, where he gains the weight in the future!

    • thefalcon123 - May 24, 2011 at 1:36 PM

      Boooo!!! I don’t buy into the Bautista-Steroids hype (it’s May, people turn their careers around and he probably won’t finish the year with Babe Ruth numbers). But to say someone didn’t do steroids because they aren’t huge is absurd. Remember Fernando Vina or any of the other 9,000 players in the Mitchell Report?

    • billtpa - May 24, 2011 at 2:11 PM

      Matt Lawton, J.C. Romero, Alex Sanchez, Jason Grimsley, Juan Rincon… yep, huge.

      The suspicion about Bautista is ridiculous and deplorable, but drawing conclusions one way or the other based on appearance is no better.

  15. cur68 - May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM

    This again? Meh.

    If he was a monster sized guy, with leave the earth power shots I’d be worried more about PEDS. I know a bit more than the average person about the subject and I can’t think of a single drug that improves your patience, helps you identify pitches, gives you the discipline to lay off the bad ones, and adjusts your swing to hit breaking balls and fastballs ~ 420 feet. He’d always hit the ball, but it was always pop ups and foul outs before. With some adjustments, it became home runs.

    In interviews he says he isn’t trying to hit a homer, just hit it hard. I wonder if we’ll see a ‘copy Bautista’s stance’ effect like we’ve seen a ‘copy Halladay’s pitch delivery’ effect.

    Someone said during a game “I don’t know why young Pitchers aren’t given tape of Greg Maddux and told ‘do it like that’ ?”. I didn’t know why either. Seems like a good idea. So for all those pop outs/ foul out guys; watch some tape of Jose and hit it like that. Worked for him.

    It helps that he is The Most Interesting Hitter In the World, too.

  16. offseasonblues - May 24, 2011 at 12:09 PM

    What in the world are you getting at here? I read the Daily News link expecting the kind of nastiness I remember from the NY press in 1961 ( I was a kid, but old enough to read the sports pages). Instead I read a very reasonable, hopeful account of Bautista’s success.

    MLB has a testing program but we all know the creator chemists are always a step ahead of the tester chemists. Suspicion and curiosity will always be a legitimate response to something statistically unusual.

    Maybe there are no drugs out there that could possibly A) provide increased power without increased bulk, and B) pass the urine tests currently in place. Maybe. I’d like to see the research, but that would mean using human beings as guinea pigs and that isn’t going to happen. So I think there is plenty of reason to say “I hope he’s clean” without causing outrage.

    And I do hope he’s clean. I think he probably is. I do hope that late bloomers are possible because they’re fun to root for. I do hope somebody clean will come along and set some new records.

    But, especially given the financial motivations within professional sports, why should I trust, or refrain from expressing a shadow of doubt, if I can’t verify?

    • Andrew - May 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM

      A big reason is that John Harper is suggesting the same thing with Jose Bautista just 2 years after a blogger (Jerod Morris) did the same thing with Raul Ibanez. Morris was ripped to shreds, and yet Harper likely won’t receive the same sort of backlash.

      • Andrew - May 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM

        “…Harper is suggesting the same thing with Jose Bautista just 2 years after a blogger (Jerod Morris) did the same thing with Raul Ibanez…”

        Apparently I’m a fan of using “the same thing.”

  17. nygf - May 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM

    I’m a NY Mets fan and read the Daily News on an almost daily basis. Harper wrote a headline back in spring training saying “Mets fans hoping for the best, but expecting the worst” to which I replied “Funny, that’s also my approach to the quality of New York sports journalism!”

    Ho ho ho

  18. stratomaticfan - May 24, 2011 at 12:30 PM

    Funny how they speculate on Bautista and his HGH, but look the other way at the possibility (probability) that Colon is using HGH.

  19. tuftsb - May 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    Raul Ibanez agrees that the constant streoid speculation by sportswriters has merit.

    In order to try to quantify the problem, how many standard deviations away from the norm should home run performance be in order to warrant “investigation”?

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 1:10 PM

      Gee, I’m not sure there is enough data on one players career to reach a p value that shows statistical significance.

  20. frankvzappa - May 24, 2011 at 12:39 PM

    Guilty til proven innocent is the Amerikan way

    • offseasonblues - May 24, 2011 at 12:59 PM

      You’re going to have to shut down every news organization in the country to stop speculation about innocent people.

      And who said guilty? I don’t read every article,but this one caught my attention for some reason. I read the content, not the byline, and I see so evidence of a guilty charge, or calls for investigation.

      Free speech is the American way. Accepting the wizard’s tricks at face value without lifting the curtain is not.

      Once bitten, twice shy. It is not Bautista’s fault we were bitten by a bad wizard, and I’m sure at some level he understands why some of us express a “hope” that he is clean, along with our enjoyment of his accomplishments.

    • Utley's Hair - May 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM

      With your outlook, it must always really suck to be you.

  21. bigbbfan - May 24, 2011 at 12:59 PM

    Sorry proudlycanadian, you inadverntly used a poor selection of ex-players to make your analogy. If y ou research the main side effects of continuted use of many amhetamines you will see the loss of hair and rashes/blotches of the skin as two of the most common ones. It is well documented that Roger Maris experienced both in his record setting season. The medical community had simply not identified those two side effects as symtomatic of prolonged usage at that time. Before I get all sorts of vindicitive replys, this does not prove he was using greenies, I just use it to point out that this (PED’s) may be a really old problem for MLB.

  22. Jonny 5 - May 24, 2011 at 1:04 PM

    If you dissect this guy’s swing on numbers alone, he has become much more selective with what he swings at when his metamorphosis took place (100 walks, nearly double his normal rate). And he was also able to keep his strike out rate around the same, but slightly higher rate. It kinda tells me he’s swinging hard still, maybe even harder than before, which is a benefit a guy with a better eye can enjoy (less fighting off type of swings). I can totally understand him improving his ability to “see” the ball. Which will allow a guy to swing for the fences more often I think. Anyway, IMO he’s innocent until proven otherwise. I also think people misunderstand steroids if they think it instantly changed his approach at the plate, which we know happened because his walk rate nearly doubled. I understand more balls go over the fence instead of being a fly ball, but there is other evidence that more strongly supports the theory that he just got better at “seeing” the ball.

    • seanmk - May 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM

      wow jonny 5 with the knowledge, i’m impressed. to back him up with the numbers bautista gets the least pitches in the strike zone in the majors with only 37.3% pitches thrown to him being strikes. he is also swinging less then he did last year.

  23. Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM

    OK, all you nitwits who are saying there is a possibility that Bautista is using PEDs have to answer a very simple question. Why is he the only guy doing it? Why is he the ONLY GUY to have 60 home runs the last 162 games? Why was he the ONLY GUY who hit over 50 last year and won the HR race by 12 over Pujols and 15 over the 3rd place guy? If he were using steroids, why didn’t anyone else use them?

    Use your common sense, boys. Dude is just raking right now. Period. He will slow down, and when he does, will you all be saying “Oh, he must have got off the juice”? LOL.

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM

      Maybe he knows a rogue chemist.

      • Chris Fiorentino - May 24, 2011 at 1:18 PM

        You mean he knows “THE” rogue chemist, right? I mean, he would have to know the only rogue chemist creating the magic beans to help guys hit home runs, since all the other “sluggers” are raking at a much lesser rate than him.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 1:22 PM

        You are right, I did mean “The Rogue Chemist”….I was saying that tongue in cheek. But there are rogue chemists out there. The whole mad scientist thing has become somewhat of a joke, but they do exist. Where do you think designer drugs, etc. come from.

      • cur68 - May 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM

        ‘army; I’m in the research biz, too. And for a fact, money drives research. If this is a Rogue Chemist (RC) then he/she is one quirky person.
        The RC is not interested in money because he started selling to the least well payed athlete ON THE PLANET.

        The RC is also not interested in fame since he’s only selling to one guy and keeping his mouth shut about it.

        The RC is not interested in a Nobel Prize because he’s doing this illegally and whatever he’s come up with is the SACK of all juice. Nobel Prize winning juice.

        The RC’s not interested in notoriety because he’s picked baseball and not say Soccer (a much bigger sport) to make his mark on.

        The RC is unlike any scientist I’ve ever met.

      • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM

        It does happen. Who do you think synthesizes ecstasy? Some street corner dealer, I don’t think so. There have also been several cases of chemists trying to modify MDMA into a cousin substance that currently isn’t on the government list of banned/controlled substances. Those generally end badly, but it does happen. A working knowledge of Organic Chemistry and sufficient funding is all one needs. Chemistry students, I am not advocating or suggesting you try any of this. Those people I mentioned above gave themselves severe early onset Parkinson’s.

  24. thefalcon123 - May 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM

    Bautista is just hitting home runs, right now he’s hitting like Bonds or Ruth. If he finishes the year with a .353./.503/.827 line, I think it is ridiculous to assume a 30 year old with a career with a career .794 OPS suddenly figured out how to become Babe Ruth without something strange going on. It would be the most comically absurd career turn-around in baseball history.

    That being said, I don’t think anyone actually thinks he will finish with anywhere close to that line. I think he’ll cool off considerably and finish with numbers that resemble a real player and not a player in a Super Nintendo game. I don’t think a hot streak and a 50 home run season are reason enough to scream “STEROIDS! BURN HIM!!!!!”

    • drmonkeyarmy - May 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM

      You are right, he is hitting like Bonds. Therein lies the problem.

  25. tuftsb - May 24, 2011 at 1:31 PM

    hair loss from greenies – will Craig have to drug test before posting his columns?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3177)
  2. G. Stanton (2598)
  3. M. Teixeira (2491)
  4. H. Olivera (2419)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2405)
  1. J. Fernandez (2399)
  2. K. Medlen (2193)
  3. Y. Puig (2155)
  4. G. Perkins (2095)
  5. J. Eickhoff (2066)