The outfielder chewed tobacco and drank beer and had a penchant for Honey Buns, so he wasn't the most health-conscious young man in America. That's why I'll never forget the day he pulled a bottle of creatine monohydrate out of his locker - a substance he could have found in just about any of our lockers - and held it up in front of us.

"What do we really know about this stuff?" he said. This happened eight years ago, right about the time creatine was becoming a popular supplement for muscle enhancement. I was a sophomore baseball pitcher at the University of Maryland, and even though I was using the stuff, I hadn't really considered any possible side effects.

Here's what I did know about creatine: It made me stronger. Much stronger. Taking the recommended dosage of the powdered substance helped me increase my bench press and squats by 30 percent. It seemingly made me faster during sprints. It helped me pack about 20 pounds onto my lanky frame in two months, making me more imposing and confident on the mound.

And most importantly, it was legal.

Eight years later, it still is. But my former teammate's question sticks with me: What do we really know about this stuff?

I know that's not the question Virginia Tech is grappling with right now, but it has been considered in the past and should continue to be in the future. The current controversy in Blacksburg centers around whether strength coach Mike Gentry helped athletes obtain the supplement at discounted rates, as two football players have claimed.

That would be a violation of a NCAA rule prohibiting special benefits (such as discounts) and the rule against providing or arranging the sale of creatine to athletes. Athletic director Jim Weaver has launched an internal investigation based on the published report in the Harrisonburg Daily News-Record.

I read that report. And what struck me about it wasn't so much the allegations, though they certainly have potential consequences if true. What struck me was the quote from Tech's freshman offensive lineman Nick Marshman, who was hospitalized in late May with a kidney ailment after having been a Tech student since January.

"When they [the doctors] found out I had the creatine," Marshman told the paper, "they kind of pinpointed it as the problem, that it was the creatine that did it."

Yikes.

This is the reason the rule was adopted in 2000, a year after I left college - the NCAA doesn't want its member schools handing out supplements that could be risky.

But "could" is the operative word. Tech director of athletic training Mike Goforth said he hasn't seen any problems with creatine in his seven years with the Hokies, even though it's widely known that many athletes use it. Even Marshman's story doesn't qualify when given the proper context, Goforth said.

Goforth said lab tests showed Marshman had high levels of creatinine - a protein indicator of kidney function - so people automatically assumed creatine was to blame.

"He hadn't taken creatine for about eight weeks before that, so we know that creatine wasn't the case," Goforth said. "The comment [from the doctors] was that he should stay away from creatine from that point on, but there were also comments like he needed to stay away from anti-inflammatory medications because of their effects on the kidneys.

"So there's probably about four or five things that he should not have done, but creatine was the only one that got mentioned in the paper. I mean, he's a guy who shouldn't take large doses of Tylenol at this point."

Goforth hasn't discouraged healthy Tech athletes from taking creatine. In fact, he's recommended it in some cases when surgical patients need to build muscle during rehab.

The reason? The NCAA bans just about anything remotely dangerous, but it hasn't banned creatine. And medical studies have given almost no ammunition to the supplement's critics.

Anecdotal evidence of creatine's risk exists, but most of it is inconclusive. Major-league baseball player Derek Bell swore off the supplement in 1998 after two trips to the hospital with kidney problems, but he conceded that he probably didn't drink enough water when he was taking creatine.

Many others, myself included, have taken the supplement as directed and have experienced no noticeable problems.

A recent report in the American Journal of Sports Medicine concluded that, despite the anecdotal evidence, there has been no study demonstrating a negative short-term side effect with the use of creatine in athletes.

"It appears that short-term supplementation with creatine is safe," the Sept.1 report reads, "although much more research needs to be done to investigate long-term effects, possible harm to other tissues, and the consequences of down-regulation."

Goforth said if any studies came out that did show negative effects, he'd change his tune immediately.

"Definitely," he said. "You show me something beyond just anecdotal stuff, and I would definitely change. I'm not doing my job if I don't follow the research."

What do we know about this stuff? Still not much.

But given what we do know, I'd use it again.