Griffin: The Spin reminds us we need to ask questions

Damien Cox: When it comes to Jose Bautista, how is it exactly that at the age of 29 he's suddenly become the most dangerous power hitter in baseball?

Today's The Spin entry by Damien Cox on this Star website regarding Jose Bautista got me thinking. Why is it just baseball, a sport that has mandatory PED testing at least twice a year, that falls under suspicion?

For the following unpopular question blame Don Cherry and all the nonsense he has been spewing over the last decade about no, absolutely zero, problem in the NHL with performance-enhancing drugs.

Don't blame me.

When it comes to hockey hall-of-famer, forward Dave Andreychuk how is it exactly that at the age of 30, back in 1993-94, he suddenly joined the illustrious ranks of 50-goal scorers? 

Chance? Healthy living? Diet? New contact lenses? Composite stick? 

Hey, prior to 1993-94, Andreychuk, one of the nicest guys in the game, had never potted more than 41 goals in a season, then BAM. What's up with that? The Hamilton, Ontario native (hmm!) had 25 goals the year before, then out of the blue, Bobby Hull and Boom-Boom Geoffrion-esque numbers. 

Things happen in hockey, I guess.

The next year, Andreychuk scored 22 goals, then eight the year after that. But was he done? No sirree. All of a sudden, Andreychuk seemed to find a mysterious Fountain of Youth that carried him for another 10 productive seasons until retiring at age 43. How so? Are these questions that should have been asked at the time by Hockey Hall-of-Fame voters or are they just too trusting and star-struck?

And by the way, when Andreychuk was drafted, he was listed at 6-4, 200 lbs., yet when he retired he was listed at a strapping 225, gaining 25 pounds of mysterious muscle. Hmm, again.  

Now, granted, I have never spoken to Andreychuk and may have met him only once while covering a Tampa Bay game late in his career. But that shouldn't matter. 

Hockey fans won't like it, but you've got to at least ask the question when it comes to Dave Andreychuk. As to what the question is, I'm not sure, but you can only guess.

For the fact that we do wonder, blame hockey....and Damien.

    

Comments

[Matt_CC]

@Nick W:

Wow, way to completely miss the point of the article. I believe the idea here was not to actually accuse Andreychuk, but instead to point out the absurd lack of any proof in Damien Cox's 'article'. If you read Damien's article (which was linked in this article) it will make more sense. Next time do your research before making a fool of yourself.

Also, great article Griff!

[Joe]

Griff, stop being coy, you either agree with your colleague or you don't. Personally I thought it was almost libelous for D.C to have suggested that Jose is juiced. Awful, awful writing by Mr. Cox. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Paul Martin]

If you ever saw Andreychuk's shot you'd know for sure he never touched steroids... the ultimate 'garbage-sweeper'!!

[Al]

Well, only one hockey player's statistics were brought into question by Griffin, so does that mean there's a good chance that only one hockey player may have taken PEDs? Because that's totally statistically insignificant - I guess there really isn't a PED problem in the NHL.

Besides, I've only heard of PEDs that improve a person's strength or stamina, not a player's shot accuracy or stick-handling ability. Powerful slap-shots are useless if they go wide of the net, and if you can't deke pass the d-men you won't even be able to get your shot away. It takes more than just strength and stamina to score many goals - it takes skill.

[sam]

Hi Richard -
Nice comeback to The Spin by Damien Cox.
When I read the piece yesterday the only thing that came to mind was "Wow..." You can call his approach stiring the pot - or whatever you want - It was pure speculation on his part and involved asking a question that didn't need to be asked. In a season where the expectations of the blue Jays were rather low, a bright spot like Bautista's power numbers gives the dyed in the wool fans something to cheer for. Damien's approach - was rather weak. Your comeback - funny, but unnecessary.

[Jay]

The people who don't understand what this is about should relax and shutup.

It's a shot at Cox NOT at Andreychuk.

[Chuck]

I was a little confused at first.. till I read Cox's article - http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2010/08/gotta-at-least-ask-the-question.html

[Ami Angelwings]

I'm amazed that the comments here seem split between those who think this is some sort of serious attack on Damien Cox and those who think that this is a serious attack on Dave Andreychuk xD I think it's pretty obvious from Griffin even choosing Andreychuk (who as somebody noted doesn't really fit the bill all that well) that his tongue was firmly placed in cheek. Perhaps Griffin really does disagree with Cox about Bautista's possible drug use, but it sounds more like a casual disagreement if anything, rather than some sort of "bitter" feud or something. Regardless, this comes off more as a tongue-in-cheek poking fun at Cox's blog post and perhaps at some of the passion that blog post engendered in the comments. xD

[mwm32]

This is a riot. We need Doug Smith and Morgan Campbell to jump in and comment on soccer and basketball respectively.
I think the end of summer office bbq is going to be awkward...

[BDizzle]

I dont know whats more hilarious, the article itself (well done!) or the obvious hockey fans posting on here who clearly have no idea whats going on here. Re-read the Cox article. Then re-read this one.

[matt]

its not an attack on hockey, andreychuk, or even cox - its pointedly showing the irresponsibility of cox's article. an article in which he blindly accused someone of taking drugs where absolutely no proof is out there. id expect an apology from mr cox, and appreciate mr griffin pointing out the absurdity

[2nd Guess]

Shades of Craig Daniels and Mike Ulmer! The Star should take great pains to make sure Griff and Cox are never booked on the same flight.

Considering baseball's history of performance-enhancing drug abuse -- brought to the forefront once again last week by Clemens's indictment -- Cox's question is not unfair at all, although he surely should have qualified it by emphasizing that he has no proof whatsoever Bautista is juicing.

(How's this for coincidence -- as I write this, Bautista has just gone downtown against the Yankees.)

Considering that Toronto -- after Clemens, Canseco, Glaus and Zahn have blown through town -- has a reputation for PED similar to Montreal's in the 1980s for cocaine, it looks like Blue Jays fans (and some media, it would seem) might be just a little quick to dismiss the thought that it might still be going on -- idle as that thought might be.

Long as we're asking questions, how does pro football -- widely regarded as the gold standard of PED abuse -- continue to get a free pass?

[Craig Grimes]

I sat at a stats website and plugged in the names of players and over and over found players who suddenly, one season, had freakishly high numbers and then tailed off (think Gary Leeman, Jonathan Cheechoo, etc. etc.). If Cox's article points to something it is exactly the opposite of what he intended. Players having a huge year that stands out from their other seasons seems to be the norm. It's the guys who do this year after year that are the real oddity.

[bjfd]

JS14, you are clearly missing the point on this even if you are a typical hockey-obsessed Canadian

[M B]

There is absolutely no reason to paint a guy with the 'steroid brush' to prove a point to your co-worker. When people Google Andreychuk's name they will stumble upon shotty journalism like this. You certainly wouldn't be printing stories featuring keywords like "Richard Griffin pedophile".

Griff, you owe an apology to Andreychuk -- a proud and giving citizen of southern Ontario -- and his family. This is a sad, sad day for sports coverage in this newspaper.

[Brian]

Funny stuff, Griff... "Boom-Boom Geoffrion-esque numbers" nice...
It does sadden me to see how many posts missed the point.

[bob loblaw]

and of course Gary Leeman

[Andrew]

Sigh, can we please have hockey reporters only cover hockey please and stay away from sports that they have little or knowledge about?

[Greg]

Opportunity affects those raw numbers more in hockey. Any MLB starter will get 600 PAs a year no matter what to hit HRs, but a hockey player may have different linemates, different icetime, more or less PP time, etc. which can significantly affect his goal totals.

The other thing worth mentioning (and I'm not sure if anyone has as I haven't read all of the comments) is that Andreychuk did NOT have 25 goals in 1992-93, he had 25 goals in 31 games after being traded to Toronto. He had 29 before the trade, for a total of 54, one MORE than he had in 1993-94. The year before that (91-92), he had 41. Just awful research all around.

[Richard]

1) Whoosh - this was not about Dave Andreychuk.

2) Hockey may not have the string of red-hand catches of MLB and NFL, BUT when the number stands at 0, you've got to know that the number is wrong.

3) C'mon Griff, like you haven't quietly wondered whether Bautista hasn't helped himself to a little something something....

4) Bautista, if you ARE helping yourself to a little something something, and The Man comes for you, Griff will now hide you in his basement. The most important this is this: Cox was wrong!

[Rick Grace]

Look at all the baseball fans taking shots at hockey.
Amazing how much most of the non hockey media in Hogtwon just hates hockey.
Probably because it dominates their fringe sports.
Griffin can whine all he wants.
But to question Jose Bautista is not out of the ordinary.
Baseball players have cheated and will continue to cheat.
They lie when they are accused.
But eventually they get caught.
But I don't get how accusing a baseball player of steroids ended up in the slagging of hockey by this writer?
Typical Hogtown hockey hating hack.

[Sill]

Man... you guys are definitely missing the point of his article. He's just saying Bautista's season is just as likely to use PED as Andreychuk which is not very likely and Andreychuk never got widely accused like this. Mr Griffin is just being sarcastic with his article and telling Damien like it is: to stop writing garbage articles and stir up suspicions. We finally have an awesome player playing for the Jays and the first thing anyone wants to do is suggest he might be on something? I mean comon, that's ridiculous

[barclay donaldson]

..Bautista took a drug to improve his hand eye coordination, maybe but not PED...look under another rock Dame!

[yertu damkule]

it's comical the number of geniuses out there who take the time to post comments, but not the time to actually read AND interpret what is being written, both by cox & griffen.

cox's point was simply that fans/media have been guilty in the past of ignoring obvious, er, anomolies in player seasons (the brady anderson example). truth is, if you've followed baseball for more than 30 seconds and haven't wondered at least a little bit about jose's power surge over the last calendar year...well, i'm not sure what to say. i assume you still think sosa, mac, bonds, palmeiro, manny, papi, a-rod, giambi...and hundreds of others...were just taking 'supplements.' or that any player who wasn't explicitly named as a user is to be considered without suspicion? pie in the sky wishful thinking. anyway, the point cox was making wasn't that jose is juicing (or HGHing/PEDing); he's merely insinuating that the age of just believing that players AREN'T using PEDs & that their upswing in production is due to traditionally relied-upon means (shift in plate approach, weight-training, diet, etc.) are over.

as for griff - when was the last time one star columnist took an actual, open shot at a colleague? this was simply griff's way of saying that he felt cox's article is unfounded & complete speculation; using andreychuk as his foil was purposeful, as it's well-known in hockey circles that dave was as stand-up a character as you'd find, and would be the last guy to actually use PEDs...but that his statistical performance & body chemistry changed over time, much like a user's might. his point was that it's a slippery slope to start looking at such things and ASSUMING something ilicit is taking place, in lieu of any corroborative evidence.

as is often the case, they are both 'right.' at least to a degree....

[Scott C]

Zing!