Not very informative, but I guess he's on a tight leash. It's exactly what a man in his position should be saying. Very sensible.

*sigh*

I guess I just hoped that it would sound different coming from him than it did from all the others.

I hate to say this, but I'm not really satisfied.

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure what to think of that.

I respect his privacy, and I don't think he should compromise it. However, it just feels like nothing more than spin.

We'll have to see how it plays out in the grievance hearing (if we even get to find out any of it).

k-bro

Uh, sorry about the double post. My computer ate itself.

I was just going to post that. thanks, Batgirl.

I hope he's telling the truth, that he would never knowingly violate the rules. it sucks, though, that the agony will be prolonged. the appeal won't be until after the suspension is over, and then who knows how much longer that will take.

as with all the stupid NHL CBA nonsense, I think I will be happier if I push all of this out of mind until something real happens.

my fragile little mind can't take much more.

SayRah,
Me either.

What I got out of that was that he didn't know that whatever he was using was banned. I understand that he isn't at liberty to discuss the details right now because of the appeal, but really, what was the point of the press conference if he wasn't going to answer any questions? At least he didn't pull a Giambi and apologize to the whole world but not say why he was apologizing.

Hmph

Not much to it, is there?

Were I Antman, I wouldn't do anything differently. Rincon has good lawyers, and they've crafted an excellent non-denial denial. Precisely not-very-informative. Precisely.

Carrie's computer is possessed by Bartlo Colon.

I won't say what I tested positive for, just that I didn't knowingly take anything.... it does sound like the standard company (mlb players not Twins) line

Blah ... who is his advisor - Mark McGwire? Wish there would have been a little more substance.

I was listening to Mark Rosen talk about this on KFAN and he said he appeared pretty shaken and looked very upset. I guess if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say too much either as that may affect the outcome of the appeal, however I applaud him for speaking to his team and fans at all. I think there would be a lot of players who wouldn't even release any statement, let alone go infront of the media and say this.

I still love Boo and will stand by him 100 percent until I'm given reason not to.

from what i have read, even if he wanted to say more, he is forbidden by MLB

Here I am . . . giving Rincon the benefit of the doubt.

Reading between the lines, by challening this suspension he:

1. Thinks it is a false positive.

or

2. Doesn't know what he might have ingested to test positive.

Maybe I'm still bitter about the contraction charade, but without more information, how can we take anything thing MLB says at face value?

twinsfaCA -- Really? 'Cause that would change my perception entirely.

Anyone care to speculate on the PR nightmare MLB would have if it were a false positive? One thing's for sure: Selig's proposed tougher penalties would be out the window.

I'm not sure if MLB is prohibiting him from saying more about it, or if his agent/lawyers are keeping him quiet. My guess is he doesn't want to say anything that could be misunderstood and hurt his appeal.

ndtf - such as no one wanting to be in his pants?

Something like that, yeah.

The video is up on the Strib. I don't know he didn't look very upset to me, but maybe Rosie was talking about before or after (I didn't hear that part all that well). I do have to say after listening to him and watching him, I felt bad for the kid and hope to god it's all a misunderstanding somehow.

I don't know whether he really has a legitimate grievance, but if he believes he does, the MLBPA, I'm sure wouldn't let him say anything. Also, last year when all of the players like Sheffield and so forth were defending themselves, it was the MLBPA that refused to let them take a drug test. Finally, if were ever to be accused of anything like this I would never speak without a lawyer present. You only get in more trouble when you do. Just ask Martha Stewart.

Ya know, I've been through this whole thing before. I'm also a fan of professional cycling, and Tyler Hamilton, one of the US's top cyclists (there are a bunch of them other than Lance Armstrong) tested positive after last year's Olympics. It was exactly the same thing--super nice guy, the last one anybody would suspect, no one can believe it, he profusely denies it....yada yada yada. None of his appeals have gotten him anywhere. It looks like he's guilty, but he says he's not, and here we are as fans, wanting to believe him but having evidence to the contrary. It sucks. And we will never really know. Same thing here. Here we were, thinking that this press conference was going to answer our questions, but it didn't, and we will never really know. It's very discouraging. But it doesn't change what I love about baseball. I'm going to the game on Thursday, and I'm going to cheer and whistle and clap, and I'm going to keep score and eat a Dome brat and play Twingo. I'm going to jump out of my seat when our boys make awesome catches and great throws and hit homeruns (or doubles)and steal bases. I'm going to have fun.

I'm going to try to not think about it anymore today. Instead, I will gasp at the wonders of mighty LNP, Tiny Superhero! And then go take a bike ride.

All I can say is that by his using the word "knowingly", he is denying purposeful use and he had better be telling the truth. I would rather that he tell the truth and admit it, than to find out later that he tried to hide it.

If he's telling the truth (and, as I tend to believe people until they've proved otherwise), I really feel sorry for him.

Unfortunately, the testing procedures and the list of banned substances seem to be quite a mystery. My question, though, is whether someone who has tested positive in the past is tested more frequently in the future.

If Juan never really answers the questions, if he's tested more often in the future, people will at least know whether he stopped doing whatever he did. (And I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt, in case my post might indicate otherwise.)

Amen Pepper, except I'm going to do all that tonight.

I'm rather sad, because I don't think I can get out of work on Thursday, so that would be the first home game of the season I won't be able to attend.

Heard an interview with Newmie on Barriero last evening. On the subject of Juan's positive test, Newman pointed out that the "announcement" to the team about prohibited items was a couple hour presentation in spring training the morning of a game. Not a great deal of attention being paid and some handouts distributed which were (in Newmie's estimation) not likely to be widely or carefully read.

Newmie's point - while certainly not trying to make excuses for Juan or any other player - is that you'd think the league and the players association would have a joint interest in rounding up a sample of any of the over-the-counter concoctions that could result in a positive test and spend more than a couple of hours doing show and tell. Break down any language barriers and avoid as much confusion as possible.

The ultimate responsibility is the players'. They have to be confident that what they're ingesting is neither illegal nor potentially harmful to them. A combination of ignorance, disregard for consequences and temptation of huge reward is going to cause a certain number of players to get caught in the net. You'd think all parties would be interested in keeping that number low.

Lots of hands are dirty right now. We can no longer delude ourselves that all "our guys" are squeaky clean. But anyone wishing to demonize one particular individual or group in this mess is missing the bigger picture.

Look in the mirror. Our hands aren't all clean, either.

Moralizing over. Sorry about that. But Dad couseled me to learn from painful lessons. Check and check.

Well I have to say that trying to get an appeal doesn't prove anything more than that Rincon is a selfish player. What he is trying to do is get more money, for not playing, if you had the chance to take some time off, and get paid for its wouldn't you lie too.

{EDITED BY BG]

I have recently become a www.Bat-Girl.com reader. I love this site!

To the fans who have rushed to forgive Rincon (or at the very least, have given him the benefit of the doubt), don't you want to at least wait and see how he pitches upon his return? I could be wrong, but I have a feeling many of the fans who are falling over themselves making excuses for Rincon will be the first ones calling for his ouster if his ERA shoot up to 5.00.

At any rate, as an outsider (I'm a Cubs fan living in Chicago), it gladdens my heart to see a group of fans who care this much about the players and the game. Simply put, you guys get it. The Windy City can be a pretty cynical place much of the time (but maybe that comes from the 97 years of losing).

Thanks, BatGirl, for this wonderful website.

Money, yeah that's it, we're just too blind, yeah that's it. I'm glad the people that have NOT seen this kid work his tail off from the minors to this point in his career have it all figured out. I'm glad everyone has all the answers except for those of us who *gasp* will support our players until we are proven wrong by all possibilities.

I don't know one way or another right now, all I have to say is until I'm proven otherwise, I'm giving him all of my support. All these if's, and's and but's are crazy, speculative talk.

Link to the video HooliganKat mentioned:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1741/5383543.html
In it, Terry Ryan calls him a "stand up guy..."

SemiEvilSoxFan,

I don't know if I can speak for the other Batlings on this subject, but there is only one thing that I really want right now.

Answers.

Answers to whether or not this is all a big mistake. Answers to what he took if it wasn't a mistake. Answers to how this will affect Rincon and the Twins in the future. That sort of thing. The only answer that we have currently is that Rincon's suspension will be 10 days long. It's the answers that we *don't* have that are eating at me now. And since we won't have any more answers until at least after Rincon's appeal, there's not much to do here other than twist in the wind.

Just be glad that it wasn't one of "your" guys this time.

MK

I wonder if

(That "I wonder if" shouldn't be there. That'll teach me to use preview...)

Gammons on ESPN pretty much just blamed the players association for all the positive test for the spanish speaking players. Saying they needed to provide more liasons that speak spanish that can help these players know what they can and can't take when they are back home. That many trainers in Ven. will tell a player something is ok when it isn't and the association really provides no help to them.

How exactly is Juan Rincon getting paid by appealing?

Everything I've read suggests that the MLB policy prohibits either side from revealing the identity of the substance for which he tested positive. Juan really couldn't say much more than he did. His message is loud and clear in the key phrase: That he would never knowingly take a banned substance. So he's claiming that he either took it unknowingly or it was a false positive.

Donnalove, there's no sense in trying to find logic in the bitter ramblings of an evil-hearted Bitch Sox whore.

Rincon won't be the last player who tests positive this year, and there are rumors that he won't be the biggest. We'll see what Sox fans have to say if it's one of their guys next time.

Dear Bat-Girl,

In Shoeless Joe's first day of Philosophy 101: Introduction to Logic, the professor wrote on the board "I drink therefore I am." A lesson I learned over and over in college. After killing millions of glial and other cells, I did manage to pick up some other handy logic tips, which may be used to interpet John Nook's position on his positive test.

(1) John Nook inadvertently ingested a banned substance. For example, imagine that a pranky Terry Tiffee substituted tablet-form decabolol for Nook's Flinstone vitamins during spring training. Sure, Rincon should have noted that the pill didn't look like Fred, Wilma or Barney, but wasn't there that Great Gazoo guy? (http://bedrock.deadsquid.com/information/profiles/index.php?profile=gazoo) Who could blame him?
Somehow I doubt Tiffee could be this naughty.

(2) Juan bought a Venezuelan kind of "Red Bull" that contained a little no-no in it that he didn't know about, and it showed up in his pee-pee. This appears to be the position that Juan is going to take ("I would never KNOWINGLY").

(3) Juan did steroids or another banned substance and was dumb enough to get caught. Now that he's caught, he understand that he looks really bad, so he's going to lie and take position #2.

My question is, other than taking the word of a person caught for having a banned substance in his system, how would you ever know the difference between #2 and #3? And, if Juan did cheat, why wouldn't he lie to protect himself afterwards?

Logically yours,

Shoeless Joe

To the good people of Bat-Girl Nation, and to SemiEvilSoxFan,

Steroids has been the automatic assumption with these five positive tests, but there are other substances on the list for which Rincon could have tested positive. Like ephedra, the stimulant that killed the Orioles pitcher, Steve Bechler. It's in lots of stuff you can buy at GNC, and the Federal Government just refused to ban it from the marketplace. If Gammons is right, and it makes a lot of sense, it could account for the fact that most of the players suspended have been Spanish-speaking. Perhaps MLB has let a significant portion of its players down by not making more of an effort to be multi-lingual.

As long as the stonewalling continues (and why wouldn't Selig let it? It furthers his ability to point to a "steroids" policy as being tough when it may not be catching steroids, and isn't even testing for HGH, Mr. Bonds) this will be an unsatisfying event every time. In MLB's efforts to right a widely decried wrong, they've alienated fans further by refusing to be honest with them.

I don't know if Juan is guilty or not. He seems an unlikely candidate, and I hope for all of you that he isn't. What this really should be is impetus to decry the current opaque policy, test for everything players would and could use, and purify the game we all love so much. Good luck to all of you, and thanks for allowing us outsiders to participate on a daily basis.

Andre is right. Even *if* Juanie knew what he took or what exact substance he tested postive for he is forbidden by the agreement between the Players Association and MLB from revealing it.

The language seems pretty vanilla on its face but actually given the climate the agreement creates its a pretty sensible statement.

CarrieIC,

Here's the relevant statement from the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment document. (Located at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/sports/mlbdrugpolicy05.pdf - thanks to ChiefB of TwinsTerritory.com for the link.)

"A. Except as provided in Section 8, the Office of the Commissioner, the Association*, HPAC**, Club personnel, and all of their members, agents, consultants and employees, are prohibited from publicly disclosing information about the Player's test results, Initial Evaluation***, diagnosis, Treatment Program (including whether the Player is on the Clinical or Administrative Track), prognosis, or compliance with the program."

(asterisks not in original)

* - a.k.a.: the player's union
** - the Health Policy Advisory Committee, a.k.a.: the people who run the testing program
*** - basically, the meeting between the player and the doctors who report to HPAC where they decide what needs to be done medically about the player's violation

Even more chilling is the following:

"D. Either party to this Agreement shall notify the other upon learning of a governmental investigation. Both parties shall resist any governmental investigation by all reasonable and appropriate means including, when necessary, initiation and prosecution of legal proceedings."

So not only does the agreement prevent pretty much everybody involved in baseball from talking about a player's case, it also requires the union and MLB to stand together to resist attempts to find anything out about the process, or about any individual player's status in the process.

The only exceptions to these confidentiality rules I can find are that HPAC can inform the GM of the player's club what it is the player tested positive for, and that GM can inform other GMs who are expressing interest in acquiring that player's contract. Other than that, all information is considered strictly confidential.

Hope that helps put your mind at ease.

I know Bat-Girl is a "less stats, more sass" girl, but I'm a stat guy and here are some interesting numbers on Rincon:

In 755 minor-league innings from 1997-2003, he averaged 7.5 strikeouts per 9 innings.

In 120 major-league innings from 2001-2003, he averaged 6.6 strikeouts per 9 innings.

Suddenly, in 2004, he averaged 11.6 strikeouts per 9 innings.

In 2005, he was off to a pace of 11.3 strikeouts per 9 innings.

Numbers to think about...

/quote HooliganKat Money, yeah that's it, we're just too blind, yeah that's it. I'm glad the people that have NOT seen this kid work his tail off from the minors to this point in his career have it all figured out. I'm glad everyone has all the answers except for those of us who *gasp* will support our players until we are proven wrong by all possibilities.
__________________________________________________
Not to get nit picky, but right now it appears that his tail had help being worked off, knowingly or not, and he appealed because unless he is willing to say "yep I cheated" it's what people do. Hell it took a DNA crusted blue dress to get a president to admit he did something wrong, and even then he didn't really own up to anything. I don't expect anyone that tests positive to say "yes I'm guilty." and not file an appeal. Its the process

Its very natural for people to protect their own, but this isn't a court room and there is no innocent until proven guilty, he tested positive to a banned substance. He can appeal all he wants, the damage is done.

Giambi has never publicly said that he took steriods and they only people that know what he said in the testimony to the grand jury aren't allowed to say publicly what he said then, but it doesn't matter because judgement has been made and not just on Jason, its been made on Bonds, McGuire and everyone else that was called to Balco and even people in other sports

There is a huge taint on the game right now, and the most important thing is to get it out of baseball

Thanks, David.

That's really unnerving, yet reassuring for Juan's statement. He really *couldn't* say anything more.

>There is a huge taint on the game right now, and the most important thing is to get it out of baseball

Of that, I think we can all agree.

Please, everyone, there are a lot of strong feelings here. I ask that you disagree respectfully.

Yours,
BG

And Mr. Roberto, sometimes people do simply get better. Rincon picked up some speen in his fastball when he was 24 and 25, which is the upper edge of the traditional time for people to do so. A quick scan through Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling's records shows times they both increased their strikeouts per innings dramatically.

What really bothered me today was Mike Scoscia's statement. You'd think that the big lesson from this is that if it can happen to the Ken-doll Twins it can happen to anyone.

Mike, you're next, and when Vlad or someone has to make a statement thanking the organization and the fans for all of their support, be ready to eat your shoes....

1) Did Joe Nathan show this kind of K/9 before being our closer? Did Johan have his K/9 before the second half of this year? (Don't know, not checking, wanna watch game.)

2) Juan in 2003 vs Juan in 2004 played an entirely different role. Didn't need to be the strikeout guy until Hawkins left.

3) I think a lot of people who say they should have their team trainers/doctors look at anything they ingest need to realize that a lot of these Latin players return to Venezuela or DR or PR in the offseason, and probably don't exactly have their team's professionals around.

4) And, the union's drug presentation was during spring training. I don't know who long these things stay in your system, but if it was taken in the offseason, many players might have screwed up before they knew.

5) From Bert's pregame comments: sounds like people are assuming he got burnt by taking the wrong thing, probably at home.

In conclusion, I very much hope that a couple of seasons of players seeing what happens to the Jaunnies and Sanchezes give them the wake up call to scan things well, rather than making them lose 1/3 a season for the first offense.

As a humorous aside, since it sounds like Selig wants the "three strikes and your out" because that matches a completely unrelated part of the rules (that is, batting), could we have "four balls and you walk" for pitchers? Maybe just in the AL?

Also, a prediction:
Juan Rincon will be about as big as the names get. Bigger name players (Jeter, Vlad, A-Rod, Pujols, Torii), if they juice, will have the more money to hire better chemists to make sure they don't take OTC stuff that tests positive and the stuff they do take is not detectable.

I have a couple of points to ask about: 1. Rob says the guy strikes out more people, so, he is obviously on something. Did Barry Bond's throwing arm or Sosa's improve after they started to get huge? Did they demonstrate greater arm speed? Did Rincoln bulk up? He is listed in Who's Who in Baseball as 5:11 190 in 2002 and, in 2005, he is up to 5:11 190. This is pretty suspicious. So some guys stay the same size and throw harder, while others get huge and hit a ton of homers. Why don't they let Ricon pinch hit? Most successful pitchers improve over time, so the fact that Juan has improved his k amounts means zip.The fact that he is the same size{according to my admittedly weak source} must mean something if Conseco, McGuire,Sosa, Bonds, and Giambi all got much bigger. I guess you take the stuff, and make a wish, and it comes true, whether it is for more speed on the gun or greater h.r. power.Wait til a base stealer gets caught, and we hear how the juice made him faster.Al

So apparently, in Venezuela steroids are much more available. So maybe it was some sort of misunderstanding with Rincon. I doubt though, that its a false positive... it's just not very good odds. Thus he should serve his suspension and whatever fines are levied against him if they decide to charge this as a criminal offense.

What worries me is Santana.

Please be clean Santana. Please.

"1) Did Joe Nathan show this kind of K/9 before being our closer? Did Johan have his K/9 before the second half of this year? (Don't know, not checking, wanna watch game.)"

Listening to game, so I can check.

Nathan - not even close, but the caveat is that he was mainly a starter for the Giants (29 starts in 39 appearances with a K/9 of a bit under 6). With a handful of exceptions (Ryan, Clemens, Johnson, Wood, et al.), starters generally don't have as high a K/9 rate as closers and set-up men.

Santana - looking just at his MLB numbers, you'd have to say he enjoyed a nice bump in his K/9 from his first couple of seasons when he was just a part-time starter, but looking at his minor league numbers, his K/9 varied largely from 8 to 11.5, so you'd have to say he always showed the potential (probably why the Twins traded for him). (Nathan also had some stints where he had great K/9 rates - 8.7 in 22 starts for class A-San Jose in 1998, and 9.8 in 13 starts for class AAA-Fresno in 1999, but he had more stints where he was closer to the 6 K/9s he showed in the bigs with San Fran.)

A couple comments:

Juan Rincon is making $440,000 this year. I think he is losing approximately $28,000 from the suspension. The appeal does not allow him to play until conclusion of appeal, and as far as I know that money is lost.

Only one other of the players caught so far has chosen to appeal, so apparantly appealing isn't the stock thing to do. Look at the NFL draft and Luis Castillo, it seems fairly obvious that owning up to mistakes is a better way to redeem a reputation. Unless he has something relevant to say, an appeal is not in his best interest.

Also, on an opinion note, I don't think Rincon would do it, for a couple reasons. I don't think he could afford BALCO on his salary. No player is stuipd enough to use run-of-the-mill anabolics. And I'm fairly certain that, like Santana, much of Juan's salary is going back to Venezuela. There is no way he would put support for his family in danger to boost his K/9. Especially since he signed the deal for 440 K after his 2004 breakout.

-Grover

And again, I want to point out that we don't know what substance it was, or how long various substances stay in a person's system. Different substances stay in different fluids for different amounts of times. However, the draw (and was it blood or urine? Do we even know?) happened during spring training -- which was BEFORE the current policy was implemented, correct?

So if he had something in his system, regardless of what it was, he ingested it BEFORE the new rules went into effect. And by that same logic, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Giambi's past behavior is irrelevant as well.

It's possible I have the dates all wrong. The agreement is not retroactive, could it?

"The agreement is not retroactive, could it? "

I meant, "is it?"

Rincon pretty much had to sign for $440K after 2004 because of his lack of service time in the big leagues. If he were a free agent at the time, coming off that great season, he would have been signed for big money (probably by the damn Yankees).

As far as Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling are concerned, they didn't have as dramatic an increase as Rincon did:

Juan Rincon--first great season was 2004
major and minor leagues before 2004: 875.2 inn, 7.4 k/9
2004 and 2005 combined: 94 inn, 11.6 k/9

Randy Johnson--first great season was 1991
major and minor leagues before 1991: 824.67 inn, 8.7 k/9
major leagues from 1991-present: 2961 inn, 10.9 k/9

Curt Schilling--first great season was 1997
major and minor leagues before 1997: 1713.2 inn, 7.2 k/9
major leagues from 1997-present: 1824.1 inn, 9.6 k/9

Of course, this doesn't prove he used steroids. I'm not saying he did because I don't know. I'm just pointing out what the stats show. I love this site, even though I live in Seattle, and don't mean to offend anyone, but the numbers are eye-popping. You all like Rincon and are quick to think it's a mistake and that he wasn't intentionally cheating. We just don't know.

Someone who isn't liked by anybody, Mr. Barry Bonds, saw a dramatic increase in production, at the age of 36, in 2001.

Bonds' OPS from 1992 to 2000 ranged from 1.006 to 1.135. For 9 years, he was within that range.

Then this:
2001--1.378 (age 37)
2002--1.381 (age 38)
2003--1.278 (age 39)
2004--1.421 (age 40)

Does this PROVE he used steroids starting back in the 2000-2001 offseason? Nope, it's just what the numbers hint at.

I think MLB really needs to make it clear what their policy is, what drugs are banned, etc. And they need to have a Spanish-speaking person explain it to the many Latin players in the major and minor leagues.

I feel that Juan will never be vindicated. He'll try the appeal but It won't change a thing. I guess I'm saying I think he is guilty of something wrong but we may never know exactly what. MLB doesn't really want us to know I don't think. The culture of sport supports trying to get away with something. Winning is too important, losing is not allowed. That's the way us fans want it. We set up the rules and now we got to live with them that one of ours got caught.
I thought Juan got screwed when Sheffield hit that dinger off him in the playoffs. When I heard Sheffield did steroids I wanted the homer to be invalidated and the game resumed from that point on. But maybe Juan was guilty of the same infraction. Or did the dinger cause Juan to rethink things, do something "un-Twins-like". Take the forbidden fruit.
The timing on this is not good for the stadium proponents. People don't feel we should pay 1.5 cents on the $10 to subsidize millionaires and especially millionaires who cheat. And maybe people are unhappy with the values that it represents and I can't say I blame them. I'm pretty disgusted with this whole subject right now. I hope to be better tomorrow. But I'm not sure I'll ever trust Juan Rincon or really ever trust any player. But as I said before, it's my fault, I'm getting what I asked for. When you put your faith in immature men, you get what you sow. This is coming from a guy who loved Pete Rose and Kirby Puckett. And remember the famous words, "Say it ain't so, Joe."

Now THAT'S some bravery right there. Go out and talk to your team. They're your team. You do more than collect paychecks from the same owner.

That's the way to win back respect, Mr. Rincon. That's how you do it.

You're all right in my book, Mr. Rincon. You're all right.

I hope everything works out for the best.

I, for one, still love Boo Berry.

QJW,

It's urine collection - one of the appendices to the agreement linked in one of my previous comments is a detailed collection procedure (reason #17 not to obsessively look at everything that someone links to on the Internet).

And an offense isn't defined by the date the banned substance was ingested, but by the date the banned substance was detected in a test. So yes, in that sense it is 'retroactive', though I'm not a doctor and couldn't begin to tell you how long some of these chemicals might linger in the body and still be detectable in a urine sample.

I found a piece by an individual associated with sports medicine at an Australian university talking about performance enhancing drugs and olympic athletes. Her position is that athletes must be responsible for what they ingest. But she went on to say that the testing process itself is not cut and dried, as MLB and the players union would have us believe. She listed a number of legal substances that could give a false reading for illegal substances IN SOME PEOPLE. Her point was that not all bodies react in the same ways to the same stuff. On her list of legal substances, along with many that I didn't recognize, were ephedrine and caffeine. She went on to fault supplement makers who, in some cases, do not list all ingredients and whose products are sometimes contaminated in the manufacturing process.

My point is that until the testing procedure is completely transparent and we are told what was found, where it could have come from and what the possibilities are for a false positive, I'll take what Rincon says at face value because of what I 'know' about him from the likes of Ortiz, Nathan, and Hunter.

I am afraid for Rincon. If he isn't 'cleared' by the 'authorities', what kind of devestating effect will chants of 'Sterrroooids!' by some fools in the Cell or Yankee Stadium have on the kid's psyche (which, rightly or wrongly, seems to me to be kind of tender in any case)? I trust his fellow players will talk about this with him.

>>he appeared pretty shaken and looked very upset

Tumbleweed kitty-
I'm glad to see you've managed to tear yourself away from everybody's favorite tiny superhero to help Boo and comfort him. You're a much nicer kitty than mine, she'd probably just (playfully) bite him.

Dear Kitty Tumbleweed,

Will you be joining him in Florida?

curiously,
BG

Batgirl,

I would like to. We'll see how much airfare is, and if I will be forced to ride in the cargo hold, or if they'll let me sit in First Class. I don't much care for the accomodations in the cargo hold, plus they don't have caviar.

Yours,
Tumbleweed

To all the haters out there (Yankee fans especially) who have been giving BG and Co. lots of crap for the Rincon bust:

While it may seem to you that you are merely thrusting their words back at them, to say nothing is to take the high moral ground.

Regards (and I miss this place when I am working too hard -- yes I actually miss reading a website -- i don't even miss ESPN.com -- in fact, I come here then IF I HAVE TIME i go to ESPN.com -- what is this world coming to? :)),
YankeeFan