Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Sports


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-21-2005, 02:37 PM   #1 (permalink)
whoopity doo
 
Bobaphat's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Juiced. Who do you suspect?

I know there are the obvious ones (Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, Giambi), but who else do you suspect might have been on steriods throughout the past 20 years and why do you think that?

Some of my thoughts;

Brett Boone; the guy was a doughy average player for years. He average around 12 homers for the first 6 years of his career. All of a sudden, he's built like a brick and is jacking 20 homers, then then 25, then nearly 40? Could it be that he just decided to get dedicated and start working harder?

Brady Anderson: The guy batted .250 most of his career and averaged 14 dingers per season over the course of his career. Then out of nowhere he's suddenly a .300 hitter with 50 jacks in a season.

Rich Aurillia: Another guy who when from basically having no power at all to hitting 20 an and then 37 HR's per season over only a couple of years? Now all of a sudden he's lost all of his power again?

Edgar Martinez: As a Seattlite, I could get shot for bringing up this name, it is tantamount to herecy, but this is a guy who I watched over the years go from a string bean 3rd baseman who hit for average, but not really for power, to a thick guy and muscular guy who was hitting between 25 and 35 homers every year. Could it be that he took steriods to help recover from that terrible leg injury? It wasn't until after that mishap that Mr. Martinez really hit his stride up'd his production.

Roger Clemens: This was a guy who was great when he was young but started to fall off in the last few years of his time with Boston. His Win vs Loss numbers dropped dramatically his ERA was creeping up and his strikeout figures were down. It was largely agreed upon that he was washed up. So he goes to Toronto and suddenly, he's better than he has ever been. His numbers are above his career average in almost all figures. Not to mention he's looking thick and has a noticably thicker neck and rounder face.


That's enough detail for me, but who do you think may have been on the stuff? Remember that this is all in fun and is purely speculatory.
__________________
--size matters not-- yoda

Last edited by Bobaphat; 02-21-2005 at 06:07 PM..
Bobaphat is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 02:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
The Death Card
 
Ace_O_Spades's Avatar
 
Location: EH!?!?
I'm gonna broaden the scope to other sports and say

Lance Armstrong

It's just a suspicion I have, I'd really like for him to be clean, but It's just... a sinking suspicion.
__________________
Feh.
Ace_O_Spades is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 03:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
radioguy's Avatar
 
Location: Texas
agree with you on Brady Anderson, he had one killer year. A Rod, because he's a Yankee.
radioguy is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 04:35 PM   #4 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
Oh brady anderson for sure, his arms were huge the year he popped 50,

Sheffield, more than he admitted, i bet he knew what he was taking.

Mark McGwire, everyone loves him, gotta be a roid monkey, although a true power hitter without the roids, did he not have the same knee trouble that is linked to roid use?

Luis Gonzalez (diamondbacks guy), he is a work out nut, but he just seems to have so much power for a guy with his swing and build.

Brad Fullmer, too bad he can't hit anyway.
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 08:54 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
I've never understood why some think Luis Gonzalez was on steroids. He had one fluke year where he hit 57. Aside from that, he started in a park that robbed his power (Astrodome) and experienced a modest increase in power after moving to a pretty extreme hitters park (BOB).

You don't juice for one year and then go off the stuff. That just doesn't make sense to me. Also, look at his weight, he's 6'2" and it has always hovered around 200lbs. 6'2" and 200 is not a steroid weight.
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 11:09 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
I just think we need to look a lot deeper than guys who had one fluke year. It doesn't make sense that a player would use them for one season, get amazing results and then go back to mediocre performance. More HR=more money and if there was no accountibility (and they weren't banned by the CBA till 2002) for it then why go off the juice? If we are going to look for users we need to focus more on sudden weight gains/losses.

We also have to look into the possibility that the balls were juiced. Look at this:

http://longgandhi.com/042301.html
Quote:
So all I was left with was that batters were using faster bats - that is, they were shaving down the handles to make them lighter and more aerodynamic for increased bat speed - and that the influx of pitching from the expansion had not yet caught up to the demand for good pitching.

Well, as it turns out, the ball might be "juiced". A recent article in Discover highlighted a study by Dennis Hilliard, director of the crime lab at the University of Rhode Island. Hilliard and 5 colleagues gathered balls from 1963, 1970, 1989, 1995, and 2000. They cut through the outer layers of the balls and tested the cork-and-rubber centers for elasticity.

For those who've never opened as baseball, it is made up of a compressed ball of cork, surrounded by two layers of rubber - one black, one red. Around this center are three layers of wool winding and one of cotton. This is then sprayed with a coating of rubber cement to prevent it from unraveling. The final part is the leather covering we are so familiar with, stitched together with exactly 108 stitches of red waxed string. (BTW, there are exactly the same number of stitches in a baseball as there are beads in a Catholic rosary and a Buddhist mala. Neat, huh?)

Anyway, Hilliard and crew dropped each of the compressed cork-and-rubber centers from about 15 feet. The three oldest centers bounced an average of 62 inches. The 1995 and 2000 balls bounced an average of 82 inches— about 30 percent higher. However, that's not necessarily conclusive, as cork begins to lose elasticity after about 10 years. Anyone who's ever had a fishing rod with a cork handle can attest to that.

So they tested the yarn windings. And here is where they hit the jackpot. The older balls' yarn was made almost entirely of pure wool. As the balls got younger, the amount of synthetic fibers increased. Major League rules state that the yarn can not be more than 15% synthetic. (yes, MLB has rules for something as tertiary as the yarn... and enforces them about as well as they do the strikezone). The 2000 ball was more than 20% synthetic. Why is this significant? Well, wool absorbs moisture very easily, and the humidity can deaden a ball by relaxing the tension in the winding and reducing the elasticity of its fibers. Polyester and nylon, two of the most common synthetic materials used in yarns, are entirely resistant to moisture. So balls made with more synthetic materials are more elastic and would travel farther from the same bat impact as ones with more wool.

So between the possibility of a more elastic center and the evidence of more elastic winding, it's almost certain that the ball is playing a role in the home run explosion. Early indications are that the dates this research offers places the balls coming into the league at roughly the same time as the home runs started to pick up. Obviously more testing needs to be done, especially with regard to exactly when more synthetic materials were used and how much humidity affects the flight of a "wool ball" as opposed to a "synthetic ball". However, it's looking more and more like those old timers were right: the ball IS juiced.
The idea of expansion effecting HR rates due to lower quality pitching and the changes in bats may also play a significant role. Today's bats have thinner handles, allowing the bat to have a larger head (and sweet spot) at a similar weight.

It's not as if steroids weren't used exclusively in the 90's and early 00's when HR rates jumped significantly. If steroids play such an important role in HR production, why weren't we seeing it before the mid 90's? Furthermore, if pitchers were on steroids, they are going to have a negative effect on HR rates.
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 02:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
I've never understood why some think Luis Gonzalez was on steroids. He had one fluke year where he hit 57. Aside from that, he started in a park that robbed his power (Astrodome) and experienced a modest increase in power after moving to a pretty extreme hitters park (BOB).

You don't juice for one year and then go off the stuff. That just doesn't make sense to me. Also, look at his weight, he's 6'2" and it has always hovered around 200lbs. 6'2" and 200 is not a steroid weight.

he use to be alot smaller than that, in althon baseball fantasy guide from 2004 i think is the year, he gave an interview as he was endorsing some "weight gainer" type substance, he said he use to be much smaller i think he said 180lbs or something. look at his age, homerun progression....etc, again just my opinion, btw if your ruling out "1 year wonders" than is brady anderson out in your book?
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 03:41 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
6'2" and 180 is VERY thin. I'm 5'10" and thin and I weigh 170. At that height a person could gain a good 20 lbs before he starts to look bulky. I've discussed this at length on another baseball board. Here is a quote from another poster there comparing Gonzo to Maris:

Quote:
14, 28, 16, 39, 61, 33, 23, 26, 8, 13, 9, 5

13, 10, 15, 8, 13, 15, 10, 23, 26, 31, 57, 28, 26, 17*

(Maris vs. Gonzo).

Gonzo was a good player who's power was a harmed by the Astrodome. Like Maris learning to pull homers when he was traded to Yankee Stadium, Luis Gonzalez learned to aim HR's at Tiger Stadium's short upper deck in 1998 (23 HR's)--this skill carried over to Arizona.

Now I don't know if he was actually cheating--that's the problem with steroids: it undermines our confidence in the game b/c anyone can be accused of cheating. A great player is doing well b/c he's cheating, a marginal player needs to cheat to stay in the game, etc.
*Gonzo's 17 last year should include that it was in less than 400 AB. With an extra 200, he would have been close to 25-30.

I wasn't watching baseball before the DBacks began so I missed out on Brady Anderson. Therefore, I really can't comment about him. Was there a sudden weight gain that year for him? A sudden jump in HR production doesn't mean the player was juiced, many players have had similar fluke seasons.

Weight gain isn't a definitive predictor of steroid use either. Look at what hollywood puts it's actors through. People are gaining 50 pounds for a role and losing it all in the span of a year and a half. You'd think that since these athletes are multi-millionaires they can get a trainer that can put them on a program that will allow them to put on a lot of mass as quick as possible without using illegal substances.

I don't mean to threadjack here. I just can't stand everyone making baseless accusations against everyone they want to. It just isn't fair to all the guys who are clean and even if someone wasn't, we have no way to prove they weren't.

Can steroids be the answer to why everyone listed above incresed and subsequently regressed? Sure, but there are lots of other reasons why:

Changes from pitchers parks to hitters parks
Changes with swing mechanics
Legitimate weight training
Natural progression of a player's career (most players start out low gradually peak and regress as they age)
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:11 PM   #9 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
i agree, as well i was just stating my opinion on who i thought might have been juicing. the thread was about who do you suspect btw, you catch any of bonds interview today? gotta get it on replay.

Last edited by canuckguy; 02-22-2005 at 04:17 PM..
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:29 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
no, but I bet it was great. As much as I despise Bonds, I still wouldn't put a * next to his name, even though he did admit to using steroid creams. The fact is that steroids didn't do it all for him. He does spend 6 hours a day working out in the offseason. Steroids helped, sure, but they weren't everything. There were plenty of people caught up in the Balco ring that never amounted to anything (Bernard, Estallela, etc.). Of course the media hasn't mentioned them since the start because they don't add to the fanaticism.

Seriously though, if MLB actually cared about performance-enhancing drugs they would do something about the rampant use of anphetamines. They have been around the park for decades. I just get worked up over all the steroid talk going around these days.
kutulu is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:36 PM   #11 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
i agree with the bonds thing, he is a hof without even hitting 73 homers. i say roids are +/- when it comes to performance. if say someone like chris gomez started to juice, its probably not going to make him pop out 30 homers. either you have the power/natural ability (reading the pitch, swing type) or you don't. but i do think that it can make someone who has been on the verge of power get the ball over the fence much or consistently. its the same as the corked bat thing, i remember stanford or mit did a study on if a corked bat helped you hit a ball farther and it actually showed it would decrease the distance a ball could travel off a bat.

Last edited by canuckguy; 02-22-2005 at 04:40 PM..
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:09 PM   #12 (permalink)
Curious
 
Shpoop's Avatar
 
Location: NJ (but just for college)
how about sports other than baseball? I know we have one nomination for biking...any other sports? Anyone think it would be remotely possible for someone in basketball to do steroids? I seem to think the endurance required makes sure there are no steroids, but I'd love to hear from someone more knowledgable than me.
Shpoop is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 10:34 PM   #13 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: IOWA
Bonds is ridiculous, just grow up, if you aren't going to talk directly about the issue due to legal issues than don't tell reporters that they are liars. It is retarded to just get completely defensive when their is strong evidence that you have done something illegal. Anyways, I hope Lance Armstrong has never done steroids, because he is such an inspiration to cancer survivors and people who have life-threatening health problems; honestly I really don't think he has. I think he just works really hard to achieve his goals.
__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!
drakers is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Ilow's Avatar
 
Location: Pats country
Those who say Bonds got big just by working out 6 hours a day are fooling themselves. How do you think that he is are able to recover from those 6 hour workouts. That's right, steroids. People also say that everyone puts on size as they age. While this is true in the abstract (what's that statistic...the average guy puts on 1/2 a pound per year after age 20 or some crap like that?) when most guys thicken up, they don't do it in a bodybuilder frame. To give a personal example, I'm 5'10" and weighed a solid 195 when I left college. Now, nine years later, after many years of lifting and other excercise when I'm in my summer racing form I'm around 205 or so. I know that i haven't probably been as religious as Bonds is about my workouts (hey, pay me as much and we'll see) but we're talking about roughly a pound of muscle per year, and that's during my peak muscle gaining years! Bonds was 185 in his rookie year and most people who are close to him would estimate his current weight to be about 240-250 or so. 60 pounds is a crapload of muscle to put on over any period, regardless of age, but to do it when he did makes it all the more suspicious. [end of rant]
As for Lance, i too pray that he has never and is not doing performance enhancing drugs, but if he was, it would not be steroids. If he was doing anything it would be stuff to increase the amount of oxygen he can process in his body, not build mass; Cheryl Crow practically looks like a power forward next to him!
__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris
Ilow is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 11:34 AM   #15 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: City London UK
Clemens juiced IMO.
__________________
"To live outside the law you must be honest." - Bob Dylan
Billy Ocean is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
Upright
 
No way on the Rocket. He has been pretty much the same size for a long time. Just old and fat. He works out very hard in the off season. Legendary effort.

Just look at the before and after pics of Bonds and decide for yourself.

Bagwell in Houston is suspicious and don't forget Brett Boone from two years ago.
creole king is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:40 PM   #17 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I rekon Ronnie Coleman is on steroids.
bing bing is offline  
Old 02-27-2005, 02:28 PM   #18 (permalink)
beauty in the breakdown
 
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
I really think that Lance Armstrong is clean. Several reasons:

1) He knows the risks, and I dont think he would be able to take them. He is very calculating, and isnt likely to do anything that could upset him from his throne
2) He is the most tested man in all of sports. If he were on something, he would have likely been caught by now.
3) When you look at his body, it is perfect in every way for cycling, from his massive lungs and heart to the ratio of the length of his upper leg to lower leg. The man was built perfectly in every way for cycling. Most champions are like this--born with the gift, then have the determination to do something with it. I dont think hes any different. This easily explains his domination.

Now, I unfortunately wouldnt be surprised if he were--doping is just all too prevalent in cycling. In fact, I dont believe for a moment that he hasnt ever used any performance enhancing drugs, probably earlier in his career when doping was at its zenith--but there is a difference between things like amphetamines and things like EPO or HGH. Not to justify it, but the pessimist (realist?) in me just doesnt believe that there are many cyclists out there that havent illegaly doped up at some point.
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato
sailor is offline  
Old 02-27-2005, 04:11 PM   #19 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor
I really think that Lance Armstrong is clean. Several reasons:

1) He knows the risks, and I dont think he would be able to take them. He is very calculating, and isnt likely to do anything that could upset him from his throne
2) He is the most tested man in all of sports. If he were on something, he would have likely been caught by now.
3) When you look at his body, it is perfect in every way for cycling, from his massive lungs and heart to the ratio of the length of his upper leg to lower leg. The man was built perfectly in every way for cycling. Most champions are like this--born with the gift, then have the determination to do something with it. I dont think hes any different. This easily explains his domination.

Now, I unfortunately wouldnt be surprised if he were--doping is just all too prevalent in cycling. In fact, I dont believe for a moment that he hasnt ever used any performance enhancing drugs, probably earlier in his career when doping was at its zenith--but there is a difference between things like amphetamines and things like EPO or HGH. Not to justify it, but the pessimist (realist?) in me just doesnt believe that there are many cyclists out there that havent illegaly doped up at some point.

you pretty much stated everything i feel. lance is just a terrific athelete, i remember watch the discover channel when they were showing his trainer, chris carmichael? and talking about his lung capacity...etc. but ya never know.
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2005, 05:03 PM   #20 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Oddly, for some reason I don't knw, I really don't like Lance Armstrong. But, I don't think he took steroids. Sometimes, people are just gifted in certain areas (freaks or anomalies). You gotta hand it to the guy, he earned it.

I suppose one could argue that he took drugs to alter the blood (increase platelet or red cells or something to help oxygenate).

If anything, perhaps the sport wanted him to win to promote the sport so they helped facilitate it.

How about football players - I would think football would be more prone to steroi use with all the physical grueling they endure. Doesn't steroids also help in recovery, not just muscle build up? Maybe linesmen or running backs as they take a lot of abuse.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 08:07 AM   #21 (permalink)
Tilted
 
I think that Gary Sheffield has probably used them in the past....I think that he either slowed down or stopped after last years controversy with him....but i definately think that he has used them
__________________
It's only after you've lost everything...that you are free to do anything
zerosk8 is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 08:16 AM   #22 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
the bad thing is the even the players who were never using, if their production falls off power wise then i bet they get painted red by the media.
canuckguy is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 06:26 PM   #23 (permalink)
Surviving Hurricanes
 
SAM821's Avatar
 
Location: Miami, Florida
I think I heard somewhere on some sports site or radio that Brady Anderson already admitted to taking steroids the year he hit 50...

Bottom line is, in the next 10-15 years you will see most of these guys dying off and then you will wonder if roids played a part...

Heres one I suspect... REGGIE WHITE... dying at the age of 43 when the guys was in (what i thought was) decent shape, of a "heart" problem? makes you wonder.
SAM821 is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 08:46 PM   #24 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Don Cherry. Serious case of roid rage there.

Quote:
Heres one I suspect... REGGIE WHITE... dying at the age of 43 when the guys was in (what i thought was) decent shape, of a "heart" problem? makes you wonder.
Remember that stress plays a huge part in your health. these guys spend alot of time under intense pressure so thats bound to do some damage
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening
munchen is offline  
Old 03-01-2005, 11:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Sosa....are we serious with this dude...between his time with the White Sox and then Cubs...looks like somebody inflated him with a basketball pump
lordpoopshank is offline  
Old 03-04-2005, 11:44 PM   #26 (permalink)
Crazy
 
jorgelito, The NFL takes doping fairly serious. They do random tests, six players from each team each week, and if they find someone has been drugging it's an automatic four game suspension, since a lot of the players salary is determined by how well they do in a season, such a suspension can literally cost a player millions of dollar. The second time they catch someone it's a six game suspension, third time is atleast a year, longer if need be.
Kodega is offline  
Old 03-05-2005, 01:25 AM   #27 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Cool, I actually didn't know that.

I guess the next (obvious?) question would be, "Why don't MLB do it then?" I like this NFL policy plus salary cap, it sounds like they got their shit together.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 03-05-2005, 06:36 PM   #28 (permalink)
Crazy
 
The MLB does have a testing program, it's just pathetic is all. They test twice a year and the althletes are given advance warning to when the test will be. They also don't test in the off season during training. Then the penalties a lot less severe in baseball, the first time they find someone guilty the penalty is "treatment." Which basically means they let the player go and hope he isn't stupid enough to get caught again. The second time is a $10k dollar fine. Considering how much even the worse payed MLB althlete is paid this isn't really a big threat. After that it's a 25 day suspension, 50 days if they catch you a fourth time. Finely they give you a year if they manage to catch you five times. I believe suspension is without pay.
Kodega is offline  
Old 03-06-2005, 12:43 AM   #29 (permalink)
Psycho
 
KeyserSoze's Avatar
 
Location: Lost Angeles
The problem with this whole steroid issue is MLB itself.

When Selig took over it ceased to be about the sport and it was about the all mighty $$$$$$$$$$$'s.

They knew, have known and the ONLY REASON they are talking about steroids and finally now testing for them is because the MEDIA wouldn't stop talking about it, and if the media would have just shut up I can promise you we wouldn't be discussing it either.

Personally I think ANY RECORDS broken with a player in question should have an * by it with the disclaimer that reads:

* The player was possibly using steroids and or other enhancement drugs when this record was broken due to the inability of Major League Baseball to clean up the sport and not testing for such drugs when they should have as they became to fucking greedy.





LIGHT D@ HALO!
__________________
THERE IS NO KEYSER SOZE!!
KeyserSoze is offline  
 

Tags
juiced, suspect

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360