HGH is “magic”. Whereas steroids improve muscle recovery, leading to muscle & strength gains, HGH repairs tendons, ligaments, etc … everything … even has been shown to improve eyesight.

So, what would a professional athlete gain from stronger connective tissue, better eyesight, more muscle and strength?

There is a great article out there by a cyclist who experimented with HGH, and the dramatic results he saw in his overall health and development. As soon as it is reasonably priced, all guys that are in the 40′s through 60′s will be taking some version of it as a “get/stay young” formula (currently called “hormone rpelacement therapy”. It is also VERY evident, that some doctor’s lack in the morality department and will prescribe HGH for anything and everything (or has everyone forgotten all of the clients like Matthews Jr, Holyfield, etc from the major bust in Florida?)

But, yes, as everyone from athletes to bodybuilders can tell you, HGH is “magic”, and better yet, it’s not “testable” because it’s a naturally occurring hormone.

I am simply amazed at the lack of knowledge here on HGH. It’s THE ped.

A lot of folks hand-wave off the idea that PEDs make a LOT of difference and I do NOT understand why? Do they know something athlete’s don;t? They certainly think so. But, the behavior of the athletes indicates otherwise. Athletes go to extreme lengths and take career-jeopardizing risks in order to obtain and use PEDs. Why? Because they don;t make a difference? Or because they can make all the difference? I mean, like duh (as the kids say).

Stronger contact, better eyesight, healthier connective tissue, stronger muscles, higher hormone levels, etc … I mean why would an baseball player want any of that?

I love Ankiel, I love the Cardinals, but the HGH use is problematic, especially since much of his appeal is in his increased power numbers.

Nonetheless, Ankiel is a juicer and should always be regarded in the same club as Barry Bonds and Aroid!. Remember Bonds only did HGH like Ankiel. They are guys who used science to get a big paycheck and likely shortened their lives while doing so… But if its cheating then it is cheating.

Then, fair or not, taking HGH after Tommy John surgery so that you can get back on the mound quicker would be illegal (assuming the Wikipedia article is sourced accurately).

Also, if you know your baseball drug policy history, then you know that on June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: “The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited … This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs … including steroids.” Treatment and penalties were outlined.

According to this Yahoo! Sports story: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-hgh061206
“Even though hGH is not classified as a controlled substance like anabolic steroids, it remains illegal to possess and use in all but three cases: short stature in children, wasting diseases such as AIDS and growth hormone deficiency in adults.”

Therefore, HGH use was in violation of MLB’s drug policy.

My thoughts:
Something that always gets overlooked in the performance enhancement debate is the extensiveness of a player’s use. Based on the information above and the fact that Ankiel used HGH for one year (during which he pitched all of 10 major league innings) it is extremely unlikely that his performance was actually enhanced in any meaningful way.

In a lot of ways, Ankiel use of HGH is like a hitter’s use of a corked bat. Both are against the rules (aka cheating). Both have no meaningful effect on performance other than perhaps THINKING you have an edge. How much that matters… who knows?

Bottom line: Was Ankiel’s performance enhanced by HGH? Almost certainly not. Did Ankiel cheat? Yes.