Steroids - Bonds
Important Note:
Be Sure To See Why
Show-Tech TM
Is The Best Choice For
Alternative Bodybuilding Steroid Supplements Ever!
Barry Bonds hit a career-high 49 home runs during the 2000 season, but within days of the last game, he set his sights on 2001.
Bonds already was doing weight training with Greg Anderson, his boyhood friend. Anderson took him to see Victor Conte, a self-taught scientist who boasted he could propel top-level athletes to peak performance through an unconventional mix of blood analysis and nutritional supplements.
The outfielder returned the next season bigger and stronger. The results are etched in baseball's record books -- and, perhaps, in a transcript of the secret proceedings of a federal grand jury convened in San Francisco this fall.
For while Bonds' alliance with the weight trainer and the nutritionist may have helped him hit 73 home runs in 2001, it also involved him in what may become sports' worst doping scandal.
Already the scandal has roiled both the upcoming 2004 Olympic Games in Athens and U.S. professional sports, calling into question whether some of the world's greatest athletic achievements have been attained by deliberate cheating.
At the center of the scandal are Conte and Anderson -- targets of the federal grand jury investigation -- as well as some of the biggest names in the National Football League, Major League Baseball and track and field, who have been summoned to testify. But the biggest name of all is Bonds, who after an off-season with Conte and Anderson emerged, according to the team media guide, 18 pounds heavier, solid as a rock -- and a better hitter than he had been in his entire life.
The 39-year-old Bonds has denied using performance-enhancing drugs and attributed his bulk and success to nutrition and weight training. But his relationship with Conte and Anderson has underscored speculation that his late-career assault on the home run record was steroid-fueled.
Building a business
Conte was an odd mixture of sports guru and sports fan. His Burlingame Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) sold sophisticated blood- and urine-testing services to athletes, and a subsidiary offered an array of supplements, including the popular zinc and magnesium product, ZMA.
Making a go of it in the fiercely competitive nutritional supplements business wasn't easy, but Conte was charismatic and a master networker.
In 1988, Conte provided free testing and supplements for a group he called "BALCO Olympians," then joined them at the Summer Games in Seoul.
In 1996, Conte began working with linebacker Bill Romanowski, through whom Conte generated business with more pro football players. Romanowski also steered athletes from other sports to Conte, including Remi Korchemny, a Russian-born sprint coach who has coached three Olympic medalists.
Conte and Korchemny eventually formed the ZMA Track Club, which served as a marketing tool and claimed among its athletes Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery, the U.S. sprinters who at one time were the fastest man and woman in the world.
As big as those clients were, Bonds' arrival in 2000 signaled even greater opportunities.
Anderson, Conte meet
Conte ran his business in Burlingame, Calif., just around the corner from the gym where Greg Anderson worked out Bonds.
Through his Get Big Productions business, Anderson began working with Bonds in about 1998. His business opportunities soared when Bonds introduced Anderson to other big-name ballplayers.
After Anderson introduced Bonds to Conte, the slugger began a year-round training and supplement plan. He told Muscle and Fitness magazine he visited BALCO every few months to have his blood tested for deficiencies, and Conte said Bonds' nutrition regimen included a long list of items taken at different points of the day, including three capsules of ZMA before bedtime.
73 home runs
When Bonds entered the league in 1986, he was a wiry phenom listed at 6-foot-1, 185 pounds. In the 2001 season, he was 6-2 and pushing 230 -- a linebacker in a baseball uniform.
On Oct. 5, 2001, Bonds broke the season home run record set just three years earlier by Mark McGwire. Speaking that night at Pac Bell Park, the Giants slugger thanked several people, including Anderson. Bonds finished the season with 73 home runs.
When McGwire broke the home run record that had stood for nearly 40 years, there were news reports about his use of androstenedione (Andro), an over-the-counter supplement that acted like a steroid and was banned in some sports.
By the start of the 2002 season, there were growing questions about what Bonds might be doing to enhance his performance.
New drug is detected
On Aug. 31, 2002, Olympic cyclist Tammy Thomas was banned from her sport. A steroid used in a few clinical studies three decades earlier -- norbolethone -- had been found in her urine samples.
Its discovery prompted an investigation not only by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), but also by federal authorities. Norbolethone had never been marketed for public use, which made it helpful to athletes seeking an undetectable edge.
The scientist who uncovered the mystery drug was Dr. Don Catlin, who runs the Olympic drug-testing lab at UCLA.
Officials at the doping agency told the Washington Post they believed the norbolethone was connected to Patrick Arnold, an Illinois chemist most famous for bringing Andro to the U.S. market. Arnold was never charged with wrongdoing, though, and he denied a link between himself and Thomas.
He did have a link to Victor Conte. The two were online acquaintances, Internet postings show.
In June 2003, USADA received an anonymous phone call from a man who said he was a "high-profile track and field coach." He named athletes he believed were using an undetectable steroid, cited Conte as the source of the drug and offered as evidence a used syringe with the substance in it.
Catlin performed what was described as "reverse engineering" on the substance in the syringe, and he had himself another hit.
The new drug, which Catlin named tetrahydrogestrinone, or THG, was closely related to the steroids gestrinone and trenbolone, but it was altered slightly to avoid detection. Catlin created a test to detect the drug.
Hundreds of urine samples from athletes inside and outside track and field were retested, and the agency also sent word about THG to international sports agencies and U.S. professional leagues. So far, five track and field competitors and four Oakland Raiders, including Romanowski, reportedly have tested positive for the drug.
On Sept. 3, officials from agencies representing the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the San Mateo Narcotics Task Force and USADA raided BALCO. They knew going in what they were looking for: illegal performance-enhancing drugs, including THG. They thought they knew the name of the chemist who had created this new drug: Patrick Arnold. And they thought they knew two men who were getting paid to supply it to elite athletes: Conte and Anderson.
A month-and-a-half later, the anti-doping agency announced a major doping scandal. Terry Madden, head of the organization, told of the anonymous tipster and the designer steroid, and he named Conte and BALCO as the source of the drug.
In e-mails to the San Francisco Chronicle, Conte denied being the source of THG, questioned whether it was a banned substance and said he was the victim of jealous track and field coaches.
Parade of athletes
Names of athletes who tested positive for THG leaked out. When it was reported that British sprinter Dwain Chambers -- Europe's fastest man -- was among them, it was a huge story in Europe.
In San Francisco, some of the world's greatest athletes began appearing before the grand jury in the Phillip A. Burton Federal Building.
If the investigation proceeds to criminal prosecution, the testimony of the sports stars could become public. Some could find themselves testifying about drug use in open court.
Athletes and the nations they represent could pay a price in the Olympics in Athens next August.
But baseball is where the scandal may cut deepest in the United States. Baseball will begin enforcing its much-criticized steroid policy next season, but the fans will impose their own judgment.
"I think the public will put its own asterisk (on all the records), even if baseball doesn't," said former baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent. "I think the sadness for McGwire ... and maybe even Bonds is that people will not look at them the way they did before all these drug allegations.
"I think it's bad all the way around. Nobody comes out a plus in all this."
Batting Glossary
Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1986 21 PIT NL 113 413 72 92 26 3 16 48 36 7 65 102 .223 .330 .416 172 2 2 2 2 4
1987 22 PIT NL 150 551 99 144 34 9 25 59 32 10 54 88 .261 .329 .492 271 0 3 3 3 4
1988 23 PIT NL 144 538 97 152 30 5 24 58 17 11 72 82 .283 .368 .491 264 0 2 14 2 3
1989 24 PIT NL 159 580 96 144 34 6 19 58 32 10 93 93 .248 .351 .426 247 1 4 22 1 9
1990 25 PIT NL 151 519 104 156 32 3 33 114 52 13 93 83 .301 .406 .565 293 0 6 15 3 8
1991 26 PIT NL 153 510 95 149 28 5 25 116 43 13 107 73 .292 .410 .514 262 0 13 25 4 8
1992 27 PIT NL 140 473 109 147 36 5 34 103 39 8 127 69 .311 .456 .624 295 0 7 32 5 9
1993 28 SFG NL 159 539 129 181 38 4 46 123 29 12 126 79 .336 .458 .677 365 0 7 43 2 11
1994 29 SFG NL 112 391 89 122 18 1 37 81 29 9 74 43 .312 .426 .647 253 0 3 18 6 3
1995 30 SFG NL 144 506 109 149 30 7 33 104 31 10 120 83 .294 .431 .577 292 0 4 22 5 12
1996 31 SFG NL 158 517 122 159 27 3 42 129 40 7 151 76 .308 .461 .615 318 0 6 30 1 11
1997 32 SFG NL 159 532 123 155 26 5 40 101 37 8 145 87 .291 .446 .585 311 0 5 34 8 13
1998 33 SFG NL 156 552 120 167 44 7 37 122 28 12 130 92 .303 .438 .609 336 1 6 29 8 15
1999 34 SFG NL 102 355 91 93 20 2 34 83 15 2 73 62 .262 .389 .617 219 0 3 9 3 6
2000 35 SFG NL 143 480 129 147 28 4 49 106 11 3 117 77 .306 .440 .688 330 0 7 22 3 6
2001 36 SFG NL 153 476 129 156 32 2 73 137 13 3 177 93 .328 .515 .863 411 0 2 35 9 5
2002 37 SFG NL 143 403 117 149 31 2 46 110 9 2 198 47 .370 .582 .799 322 0 2 68 9 4
2003 38 SFG NL 130 390 111 133 22 1 45 90 7 0 148 58 .341 .529 .749 292 0 2 61 10 7
2004 39 SFG NL 147 373 129 135 27 3 45 101 6 1 232 41 .362 .609 .812 303 0 3 120 9 5
2005 40 SFG NL 14 42 8 12 1 0 5 10 0 0 9 6 .286 .404 .667 28 0 1 3 0 0
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
20 Seasons 9140 2742 77 1853 141 1434 .300 .442 .611 4 88 607 93 143
2730 2078 564 708 506 2311 5584
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
162 Game Avg 542 123 163 33 5 42 110 30 8 137 85 .300 .442 .611 331 0 5 36 6 8
Career High 159 580 129 181 44 9 73 137 52 13 232 102 .370 .609 .863 411 2 13 120 10 15
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
Special Batting Glossary
Year Ag Tm Lg PA Outs RC RC/27 OWP BA *lgBA OBP *lgOBP SLG *lgSLG OPS *lgOPS*OPS+ psOPS SB%
+--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+
1986 21 PIT NL 484 336 56 4.50 | .223 .264| .330 .334| .416 .398| .746 .732| 103 83%
1987 22 PIT NL 611 424 89 5.67 | .261 .270| .329 .340| .492 .421| .821 .761| 114 76%
1988 23 PIT NL 614 402 97 6.51 | .283 .255| .368 .319| .491 .374| .859 .693| 147 60%
1989 24 PIT NL 679 460 87 5.11 | .248 .250| .351 .317| .426 .373| .777 .690| 125 76%
1990 25 PIT NL 621 390 119 8.24 | .301 .260| .406 .325| .565 .390| .970 .715| 170 80%
1991 26 PIT NL 634 395 109 7.45 | .292 .255| .410 .323| .514 .382| .924 .705| 161 76%
1992 27 PIT NL 612 350 135 10.41 | .311 .258| .456 .323| .624 .380|1.080 .703| 205 83%
1993 28 SFG NL 674 388 169 11.76 | .336 .266| .458 .331| .677 .406|1.136 .736| 206 70%
1994 29 SFG NL 474 284 107 10.17 | .312 .268| .426 .335| .647 .420|1.073 .754| 182 76%
1995 30 SFG NL 635 383 125 8.81 | .294 .266| .431 .335| .577 .414|1.009 .748| 168 75%
1996 31 SFG NL 675 382 148 10.46 | .308 .265| .461 .334| .615 .415|1.076 .748| 186 85%
1997 32 SFG NL 690 403 138 9.25 | .291 .268| .446 .340| .585 .421|1.031 .760| 170 82%
1998 33 SFG NL 697 419 146 9.41 | .303 .264| .438 .334| .609 .417|1.047 .751| 177 70%
1999 34 SFG NL 434 273 85 8.41 | .262 .262| .389 .335| .617 .422|1.006 .757| 162 88%
2000 35 SFG NL 607 349 146 11.30 | .306 .262| .440 .338| .688 .428|1.127 .766| 191 78%
2001 36 SFG NL 664 330 210 17.18 | .328 .258| .515 .327| .863 .422|1.379 .749| 262 81%
2002 37 SFG NL 612 262 186 19.17 | .370 .255| .582 .327| .799 .406|1.381 .733| 275 81%
2003 38 SFG NL 550 266 153 15.53 | .341 .267| .529 .339| .749 .429|1.278 .768| 231 100%
2004 39 SFG NL 617 247 184 20.11 | .362 .273| .609 .345| .812 .443|1.422 .788| 260 85%
2005 40 SFG NL 52 31 12 10.45 | .286 .266| .404 .336| .667 .424|1.071 .760| 177 0%
+--------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+
20 Seasons 11636 6774 2501 9.97 | .300 .262| .442 .331| .611 .407|1.053 .739| 184 78%
* indicates the value is park adjusted
Fielding Glossary
Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RFg lgRFg RF9 lgRF9 GS Inn LF CF RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
1986 21 PIT NL OF 110 280 9 5 2 .983 .979 2.63 1.82 0 110 0
1987 22 PIT NL OF 145 330 15 5 3 .986 .981 2.38 1.83 101 46 1
1988 23 PIT NL OF 136 292 5 6 0 .980 .982 2.18 1.98 135 3 0
1989 24 PIT NL OF 156 365 14 6 1 .984 .981 2.43 1.96 156 0 0
1990 25 PIT NL OF 150 338 14 6 2 .983 .981 2.35 2.01 149 2 0
1991 26 PIT NL OF 150 321 13 3 1 .991 .983 2.23 1.88 150 4 0
1992 27 PIT NL OF 139 310 4 3 0 .991 .983 2.26 1.96 139 0 0
1993 28 SFG NL OF 157 310 7 5 0 .984 .979 2.02 2.00 157 0 0
1994 29 SFG NL OF 112 198 10 3 2 .986 .980 1.86 1.90 112 0 0
1995 30 SFG NL OF 143 279 12 6 2 .980 .979 2.03 1.82 143 0 0
1996 31 SFG NL LF 149 282 10 6 2 .980 .975 1.96 1.45
CF 6 5 0 0 0 1.000 .983 0.83 2.13
1997 32 SFG NL LF 159 290 10 5 1 .984 .980 1.89 1.48
1998 33 SFG NL LF 155 301 2 5 0 .984 .975 1.95 1.38
1999 34 SFG NL LF 96 177 4 3 2 .984 .977 1.89 1.48
DH 4
2000 35 SFG NL LF 141 255 8 3 4 .989 .976 1.87 1.41 2.06 1.91 138 1151.7
2001 36 SFG NL LF 143 246 9 6 1 .977 .979 1.78 1.48 1.86 1.91 141 1231.7
DH 6
2002 37 SFG NL LF 135 241 4 8 2 .968 .977 1.81 1.51 1.98 1.92 133 1115.0
DH 5
2003 38 SFG NL LF 123 236 5 2 2 .992 .979 1.96 1.54 2.08 1.91 122 1044.0
DH 6
2004 39 SFG NL LF 133 214 11 4 0 .983 .980 1.69 1.48 1.79 1.85 132 1130.7
DH 7
2005 40 SFG NL LF 13 18 0 0 0 1.000 .984 1.38 1.52 1.71 1.94 13 95.0
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
Position Total OF 1398 3023 103 48 13 .985 .981 2.24 1.92 2489 171 1#
LF*1247 2260 63 42 14 .982 .978 1.86 1.47 679 5768.1
DH 28 Games not counted in Overall Total below
CF 6 5 0 0 0 1.000 .983 0.83 2.13
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+------+----+----+----+
Overall Total 2651 5288 166 90 27 .984 .979 2.06 1.71
# indicates breakdown of outfield by position games played is for entire career.
Postseason Batting
Year Round Tm Opp WLser G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS SH SF HBP
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+
1990 NLCS PIT CIN L 6 18 4 3 0 0 0 1 6 5 .167 .375 .167 2 0 0 0 0
1991 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 27 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 4 .148 .207 .185 3 0 0 0 0
1992 NLCS PIT ATL L 7 23 5 6 1 0 1 2 6 4 .261 .433 .435 1 0 0 0 1
1997 NLDS SFG FLA L 3 12 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 3 .250 .231 .417 1 0 0 1 0
2000 NLDS SFG NYM L 4 17 2 3 1 1 0 1 3 4 .176 .300 .353 1 0 0 0 0
2002 NLDS SFG ATL W 5 17 5 5 0 0 3 4 4 1 .294 .409 .824 0 1 0 1 0
NLCS SFG STL W 5 11 5 3 0 1 1 6 10 2 .273 .591 .727 0 0 0 1 0
WS SFG ANA L 7 17 8 8 2 0 4 6 13 3 .471 .700 1.294 0 0 0 0 0
2003 NLDS SFG FLA L 4 9 3 2 1 0 0 2 8 0 .222 .556 .333 1 0 0 1 0
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+
4 Lg Div Series 1-3 16 55 10 13 4 1 3 9 15 8 .236 .384 .509 3 1 0 3 0
4 Lg Champ Series 1-3 25 79 15 16 2 1 2 9 24 15 .203 .390 .329 6 0 0 1 1
9 Postseason Ser 2-7 48 151 33 37 8 2 9 24 52 26 .245 .433 .503 9 1 0 4 1
+------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+--+--+--+--+--+
WLser shows whether the player's team Won or Lost the series.
Appearances on Leaderboards and Awards Glossary
Awards are Year-League-Award, Stats are Year-Value-Rank All-Star
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Awards
1990-Major League Player of the Year
1990-NL-MVP
1992-NL-MVP
1993-NL-MVP
2001-NL-Hank Aaron Award
2001-Major League Player of the Year
2001-NL-MVP
2002-NL-Hank Aaron Award
2002-NL-MVP
2003-NL-MVP
2004-NL-Hank Aaron Award
2004-Major League Player of the Year
2004-NL-MVP
Gold Gloves
1990-NL--OF
1991-NL--OF
1992-NL--OF
1993-NL--OF
1994-NL--OF
1996-NL--OF
1997-NL--OF
1998-NL--OF
All Multiple Winners
Silver Sluggers
1990-NL--OF
1991-NL--OF
1992-NL--OF
1993-NL--OF
1994-NL--OF
1996-NL--OF
1997-NL--OF
2000-NL--OF
2001-NL--OF
2002-NL--OF
2003-NL--OF
2004-NL--OF
All Multiple Winners
MVP (YrLg-Rk-Shr)
1990-NL-1-0.99
1991-NL-2-0.77
1992-NL-1-0.90
1993-NL-1-0.95
1994-NL-4-0.37
1995-NL-12-0.05
1996-NL-5-0.34
1997-NL-5-0.31
1998-NL-8-0.15
1999-NL-24-0.01
2000-NL-2-0.62
2001-NL-1-0.98
2002-NL-1-1.00
2003-NL-1-0.95
2004-NL-1-0.91
Car-1-9.30 shares
Batting Average
1992-.311-7
1993-.336-4
2001-.328-7
2002-.370-1
2003-.341-3
2004-.362-1
Act-.300-25
On-base %
1988-.368-7
1990-.406-4
1991-.410-1
1992-.456-1
1993-.458-1
1994-.426-5
1995-.431-1
1996-.461-2
1997-.446-2
1998-.438-4
2000-.440-2
2001-.515-1
2002-.582-1
2003-.529-1
2004-.609-1
Act-.442-1
Car-.442-6
Slugging %
1988-.491-7
1990-.565-1
1991-.514-4
1992-.624-1
1993-.677-1
1994-.647-3
1995-.577-5
1996-.615-4
1997-.585-6
1998-.609-4
2000-.688-2
2001-.863-1
2002-.799-1
2003-.749-1
2004-.812-1
Act-.611-2
Car-.611-5
OPS
1988-.859-6
1990-.970-1
1991-.924-1
1992-1.080-1
1993-1.136-1
1994-1.073-3
1995-1.009-1
1996-1.076-2
1997-1.031-3
1998-1.047-3
2000-1.127-2
2001-1.379-1
2002-1.381-1
2003-1.278-1
2004-1.422-1
Act-1.053-1
Car-1.053-4
Games
1989-159-8
1993-159-5
1994-112-9
1995-144-1
1997-159-6
Act-2730-2
Car-2730-23
At Bats
Act-9140-3
Car-9140-51
Runs
1987-99-10
1988-97-7
1989-96-6
1990-104-6
1991-95-8
1992-109-1
1993-129-2
1994-89-3
1995-109-2
1996-122-3
1997-123-3
1998-120-6
2000-129-3
2001-129-3
2002-117-3
2003-111-5
2004-129-2
Act-2078-1
Car-2078-6
Hits
1993-181-7
Act-2742-3
Car-2742-48
Total Bases
1988-264-9
1990-293-6
1991-262-10
1992-295-5
1993-365-1
1994-253-5
1995-292-5
1997-311-8
1998-336-8
2000-330-10
2001-411-3
2002-322-7
Act-5584-1
Car-5584-7
Doubles
1989-34-7
1990-32-10
1992-36-9
1993-38-8
1998-44-7
Act-564-3
Car-564-19
Triples
1987-9-6
1995-7-6
1998-7-8
Act-77-4
Home Runs
1988-24-9
1990-33-4
1992-34-2
1993-46-1
1994-37-3
1995-33-4
1996-42-2
1997-40-4
1998-37-9
2000-49-2
2001-73-1
2002-46-2
2003-45-2
2004-45-4
Act-708-1
Car-708-3
RBI
1990-114-4
1991-116-2
1992-103-4
1993-123-1
1994-81-9
1995-104-6
1996-129-4
1998-122-7
2001-137-4
2002-110-6
Act-1853-1
Car-1853-11
Bases on Balls
1989-93-3
1990-93-2
1991-107-2
1992-127-1
1993-126-2
1994-74-1
1995-120-1
1996-151-1
1997-145-1
1998-130-2
2000-117-1
2001-177-1
2002-198-1
2003-148-1
2004-232-1
Act-2311-1
Car-2311-1
Strikeouts
1986-102-10
Act-1434-7
Car-1434-46
Stolen Bases
1986-36-10
1989-32-9
1990-52-3
1991-43-5
1992-39-9
1994-29-6
1996-40-4
1997-37-6
1998-28-5
Act-506-2
Car-506-33
Singles
Act-1393-14
Adjusted OPS+
1988-147-5
1990-170-1
1991-161-1
1992-205-1
1993-206-1
1994-182-3
1995-168-2
1996-186-2
1997-170-3
1998-177-2
2000-191-1
2001-262-1
2002-275-1
2003-231-1
2004-260-1
Act-184-1
Car-184-3
Runs Created
1988-97-8
1990-119-3
1991-109-3
1992-135-1
1993-169-1
1994-107-3
1995-125-2
1996-148-3
1997-138-4
1998-146-3
2000-146-6
2001-210-1
2002-186-1
2003-153-3
2004-184-1
Act-2501-1
Car-2501-5
Extra-Base Hits
1987-68-7
1988-59-8
1989-59-8
1990-68-4
1991-58-10
1992-75-1
1993-88-1
1994-56-7
1995-70-3
1997-71-6
1998-88-2
2000-81-6
2001-107-1
2002-79-3
2004-75-9
Act-1349-1
Car-1349-4
Times on Base
1988-226-10
1990-252-4
1991-260-3
1992-279-1
1993-309-2
1994-202-4
1995-274-1
1996-311-3
1997-308-2
1998-305-2
2001-342-1
2002-356-1
2003-291-3
2004-376-1
Act-5146-1
Car-5146-7
Hit By Pitch
Act-93-15
Car-93-73
Sac. Flies
1991-13-2
1992-7-8
Act-88-10
Car-88-54
Intentional Walks
1988-14-7
1989-22-4
1990-15-9
1991-25-2
1992-32-1
1993-43-1
1994-18-1
1995-22-1
1996-30-1
1997-34-1
1998-29-1
2000-22-2
2001-35-2
2002-68-1
2003-61-1
2004-120-1
Act-607-1
Car-607-1
Power/Speed Number
1986-22.2-4
1987-28.1-5
1988-19.9-9
1989-23.8-4
1990-40.4-1
1991-31.6-3
1992-36.3-1
1993-35.6-1
1994-32.5-1
1995-32.0-2
1996-41.0-1
1997-38.4-2
1998-31.9-1
2001-22.1-6
Act-590.2-1
Car-590.2-1
Salary
1992-4,800,000-3
1993-4,516,666-9
1994-5,166,666-4
1995-8,166,666-1
1996-8,416,667-1
1997-8,666,667-1
1998-8,916,667-4
1999-9,381,057-5
2000-10,658,826-7
2002-15,000,000-2
2003-15,500,000-6
2004-18,000,000-1
2005-22,000,000-1
Oldest Player
2004-39-8
2005-40-5
About The New
"CreaBlast™" Creatine
You Will Be Stronger.
High Grade Creatine Is Here
As you may know Sharp Labs Inc. who is one of the leaders in alternative supplement research and development has finally released their mega potent high grade own creatine formula. Folks please browse our site and see why we think our creatine will outperform any other creatine product out there. There is so much nonsense talked about in this modern day creatine world and the bottom line is this!
CREATINE IS
BASICALLY ALL THE SAME
All Creatines Are Yes Pretty Much The Same Except For The Grade Of The Strain. Some Companies Mix Other Ingredients To Try To Be Unique And Others Try Liquid Formulas But The Bottom Line Is You Are Paying For The Potency Of Your Supplement, Well You Should Be!
CREATINE DOES COME
IN SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT GRADES
There Are Many Grades Of Creatine On The Market. We Could Easily Make Our CreBlast With Cheaper Grade Creatine And Sell It For $10-$15 Per Bottle And That Is A Fact. We Can Send You Proof!
THE HIGHER THE STRAIN
THE MORE EFFECTIVE THE CREATINE
Our Creatine Is Made By Our Own Private Manufacturer And With Sharp Labs Being Their Leading Supplement Formulation Team You Should Know You Are Getting Top Grade In Any One Of Our Supplements!
USE CREATINE ALONE:ie. Not With Other Ingredients Mixed Into Your Creatine Capsule. This Does Not Mean Don't Use Any Other Supplements Just Use A Base Creatine Supplement For Your Supplement. Other Add In Ingredients Only Take Away From The Potency And Effectiveness And May Actually Break Down The Structure Of The Creatine!
YES ALL CREATINE IS IMPORTED
Sharp Labs Inc. Imports The Absolute Top Grade Creatine Available And Each Bottle Is Checked For Potency, Purity, Quality, And Utmost Freshness!
"CreaBlast™"
There is overwhelming evidence which shows that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in the amount of creatine phosphate in muscles. Harris et al (1992) conducted a study examining creatine content in the quadriceps femoris muscle in 17 subjects after supplementation of 5 g of creative monohydrate 4-6 times a day for two days. The results found a significant increase in the total creatine level in all subjects but the results were especially noticeable in those with the lowest muscle creatine store at the start of the study. To determine whether exercise could affect the amount of creatine absorbed by muscles, some of the participants followed a unique training program. During supplementation, they pedaled a bicycle ergometer for one hour each day while using only one leg to supply the pedaling force. With supplementation, the unexercised legs increased their creatine levels by about 25 percent, but the exercised legs increased their creatine levels by 37 percent. It is hypothesized that exercise increases the flow of blood to the muscles or changes the rate at which muscles absorb creative from the blood, thus improving the creatine loading effect. Another study conducted by Febbraio replicated the results obtained by Harris.
Several studies also show that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in muscle strength. Earnest et al (1995) conducted a study investigating the influence of creatine monohydrate supplementation on muscular power and strength in 10 experienced weight trained male subjects. Three series of high intensity, anaerobic type muscular workouts were used. The first series consisted of three consecutive 30 second Wingate bike tests, followed by five minuets of rest. Peak anaerobic power was defined as the greatest power achieved in a given five second work interval. Anaerobic work was defined as the total amount of work performed in a 30 second period. The second series used a one repetition maximum (lRM) free weight bench press as a test of muscular strength. The third series utilized complete lifting repetitions at 70% of the bench press IRM until fatigue. Fatigue was defined as the inability to complete one lifting repetition or the inability to maintain a lifting cadence of one second eccentric and one second concentric (lifting and lowering the weight). Total lifting volume was calculated as 70% of pre-test IRM multiplied by the number of complete lifting repetitions. Subjects received either a glucose placebo or creatine monohydrate supplement in a double blind fashion. (After 14 days of supplementation, each subject was re-tested on the Wingate bike tests. Re-testing for the weight lifting trials was done after 28 days of supplementation.
Within the creatine group, total anaerobic work from the Wingate tests was significantly higher during all post-test trials. The increases were 13% for series one, 18% for series two and 18% for series three. No changes were noted in the placebo group. Greater total anaerobic work resulted from the creatine subject's ability to achieve and maintain higher levels of anaerobic power consistently over- each five second time interval. Bench press IRM increased 6% in the creatine group. Total lifting volume was significantly higher within the creatine group, whether expressed in absolute terms (26%) or relative terms (29%). Increases in the total lifting volume were associated with the ability of the creatine group to perform 26% more lifting repetitions. The authors conclude that the ability of the creatine group to perform a greater total lifting volume demonstrates the effectiveness of creatine as an ergogenic aid.
In Hultman's study (cited in Anderson, 1974) these results were replicated. Each day, creatine was given in six separate doses of five grams a day. During the six-day period, five other Estonian runners of comparable ability received a glucose placebo instead. All runners were unaware of the actual composition of their supplements. Before and after the six-day supplementation, the athletes ran four 300-meter and (on a separate day) four 1000-meter intervals, with three minutes of rest between the 300-meter intervals and four minutes of rest between the 1000-meter intervals. Improvement on the final 300-meter interval (from pre-to-post supplementation) was more than twice as great for creatine users, and improvement was more than three times as great for creatine supplements in the final 1000-meter interval. Total time to run all four 1000-meter intervals improved from 770 to 757 seconds after creatine supplementation. In comparison, the placebo group actually slowed from 774 to 775 seconds.
In Hultman's study (cited by Anderson, 1994) creatine supplementation was very important during the last interval of each workout. Creatine supplementers doubled their advantage during the final 300-meter interval and tripled their advantage in the closing 1000-meter sprint. This supports Hultman's hypothesis that creatine is likely to be most helpful when lactic acid levels are highest and fatigue is greatest. Hultman thus feels that creatine serves as a buffer lowering lactic acid muscle burn and delaying fatigue, thus allowing an athlete to perform longer workouts.
In contrast, Balsom at al (1993) investigated the influence of creatine supplementation on endurance exercise performance in the form of a 6 km run and showed that creatine supplementation does not enhance performance or increase peak oxygen uptake during prolonged continuous exercise. There was actually decreased performance in the creatine supplementation group, which may be attributed to the participants weight gain.
In support of Balsam et al (1993), Febbraio et al (1995) conclude that creatine supplementation "may not increase performance during exercise where a significant proportion of energy is derived form aerobic metabolism." This aerobic metabolism occurs during more prolonged, sustained exercise as opposed to anaerobic metabolism which occurs during fast, nonsustained muscle contractions. It is therefore more likely that if creatine supplementation has an effect it will only be seen during brief, anaerobic exercise such as sprinting or weight lifting.
As you may or may not know, creatine monohydrate will not fully dissolve in liquid. That's why you always get that gritty sand at the bottom of the glass. Look at it this way, if it falls like sand to the bottom of your glass what does it do in your stomach? Maybe that explains why so many complain of stomach discomfort when using regular creatine monohydrate.
New High Grade "CreaBlast" Creatine
With Sharp Labs Inc.'s endless strive for excellence in all phases of sports supplement science and manufacturing we have finally released our new high grade ultra pure new creatine supplement that incorporates state-of-the-art particle micronizing technology.
This technology sets a new standard for creatine monohydrate supplementation by actually producing creatine "micro-particles" that are 20 times smaller than regular creatine powder.
High grade micronized creatine has numerous advantages over regular creatine monohydrate.
Faster Absorption
"CreaBlast" Creatine's smaller particle size means quicker digestion and faster utilization.
Our capsules are packed with these tiny crea-particles and release superior performance.
More Efficient
20 times more total surface area for greater uptake into the bloodstream.
Greater Purity
Micronizing creatine produces a more pure creatine. By increasing the total processing steps and purification procedures, "CreaBlast" yields a finished product substantially more pure. Test it. We challenge you.
Mixes Easier and Better
"CreaBlast" Creatine has 20 times more surface area. Greater service area means easier, faster and more complete mixing.
No Stomach Upset
Regular creatine monohydrate sits in the gut longer. This causes discomfort to many users. CreaBlast Micronized Creatine goes into solution better and leaves the gut quicker causing no stomach upset.
Better Results
New "CreaBlast" Micron High grade Creatine offers 2000% more particle surface area for better utilization, better uptake, and faster results.
Drink Plenty of Liquids!
Creatine works by enhancing muscle cell hydration. It is very important to consume adequate fluids while taking creatine to see best results. A good rule of thumb is to drink an EXTRA 16 to 20 ounces of liquid for every 5 grams of creatine you take.
During your Loading Phase you should be drinking an EXTRA 64 to 80 ounces of liquid than you normally drink. During the maintenance phase you should drink an EXTRA 32 to 40 ounces.
Order "CreaBlast™" Now!
To See The Latest In Next Generation Bodybuilding Supplements And Safe Alternatives To Steroids Please Click Below To Learn More About "SHOW-TECH"™! SHOW-TECH™ Is One Of Our Most Exciting And Long Time Products To Help Men And Women Alike Achieve The Fullest Potential In Muscle Compostion And Definition Without The Dangers Of Harmful Steroids! Our Proven Cell Volumization Formula Works For Nothing Short Of Amazing Results With Muscle Growth Guaranteed To Everyone! Perfect For All Levels Of Bodybuilding From The Beginner To The Professional Bodybuilding Competitor! Superior Lean Mass Gains Now Without Those Illegal And Potentially Deadly Steroids!
Web Author: Sharp Labs Inc.™
SEE WHAT SHOW-TECH™ CAN DO FOR YOU!
Hardcore Bodybuilding Without Deadly Steroids! Topical Bodybuilding Steroids And Sports Don't Mix!
Copyright2006 And Up - Sharp Labs Inc.
"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"
|
