G&T

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) Beer, champagne and vodka lemonade (my roommates birthday). Problem might have been that the lemonade tasted really good. Never mix beer and wine, including champagne. That's always bad news for me.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 08:55 AM) Isnt that exactly what they are doing, selectively enforcing the law? Why dont they go ahead and go after every pothead that Facebook and Myspace have to offer? First of all, you are comparing the enforcement policies of a nation to this particular police department of which we know little about. Do you know the normal enforcement policies of this department or of South Carolina? Even ignoring that, the internet can be a jurisdictional landmine. Someone from Chicago can post a picture of himself smoking up god knows where. Jurisdiction exists where the criminal act occurred, not where the suspect resides. That makes these case very difficult, not to mention the possibility of fake pictures and photo shopping. So, no, I don't think it's selective enforcement because this is an obvious case where Phelps admitted to what was going on and it is clear whose jurisdiction applied. On top of that, you have that idiot trying to profit off the criminal activity. Honestly, what do you want them to do?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) Or better yet, maybe the police should pick and choose which internet pothead picture they should go after, in order of perceived celebrity, what an even greater idea. I mean, if you see someone smoking in a picture, then they obviously can get you the name of a dealer who you can bring down, everyone will rat everyone out and all will be well in the world. This is a 15 seconds of fame by this police department, they are going to make a lot of grand statements and in the end someone is going to get busted for misdemeanor possession and thats it, POSSIBLY intent to distribute but very doubtful considering they have a picture of a guy pulling a bong, and not actual proof of possession or any actual marijuana as it is. In fact, the only thing they have is bong residue. Its a waste of taxpayer dollars in the name of fame. Internet pictures are not as simple a prospect in police investigation as you make them out to be. For the most part, it is difficult to determine where the activity occurred, thus whose jurisdiction applies. If the police could easily know, they probably would go after everyone. . . especially in a state where first time possession is still criminal. Here, the police know where the use and possession took place and South Carolina has relatively steep anti-marijuana laws. On top of that, you had that idiot selling the bong on E-Bay. This type of crap is basically taunting the police. Fact is, you think the law sucks and you want the police to selectively enforce the law. Doesn't matter what few charges they end up with, it's their job to investigate. I take a fairly liberal view on marijuana, but I don't ridicule police for doing their job. BTW, if the taxpayers don't want their money wasted, tell them to change the law. This wouldn't happen in Massachusetts or California.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 06:40 PM) Im sure they have Pablo Escobar firmly in their sights now that the first domino has fallen QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 06:48 PM) They may now be one step away from winning the war on drugs once and for all. ...yeah...that's what I said...or even implied. I guess the police should do nothing to enforce laws. Grand idea.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) Great chance? Come on, thats like saying if you arrest anyone who is smoking dope that you have a great chance of tracking down a dealer. It just isnt true, there are so many middle men and such that wont rat out the big guy, they are going to arrest some fratboy who is dealing small amounts and make him the fall guy for Michael Phelps smoking a bong. Its just ridiculous I doubt they'd be bothering if they didn't have a reliable lead.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) February 11, 2009 The Sheriff is going too far. Sorry, this is way out of scale. Search warrants on 8 kids homes. Twenty deputies. Nope, he just passed the ridiculous level for a pot violation. The cops know they have a great chance to track down a dealer who could face serious charges. You can blame the sheriff or you can blame the law. Fact is, it's their job to investigate.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) then they should prosecute the union. those idiots had plenty of time to destroy those confidential results and for some reason they didn't. Obviously it's not actually criminal. However, I would like to know what Orza was thinking. He should be fired and possibly sued for his actions. Either he is a complete idiot, or this was calculated.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) It's the law. If I cover for a friend and end up getting jail time because of it, it would suck. But, I wouldn't start crying that it's not fair because that is simply the law. Are you an anarchist? I don't think it's quite that simple. If you knowingly lie with the intent to protect someone, it could be aiding and abetting or impeding an investigation (or whatever it's called). If you are an eyewitness to a robbery and tell the police you saw nothing because you don't want to get involved, it's not a crime (I don't think). In baseball, if a player who was not using tells an investigator that he knows nothing about steroid use even though he knows every user, should that be a crime? Under federal law, likely yes. In some states maybe not (according to my friend - a law student so TIFWIW - at the DA , New York does not recognize a crime for lying to the police but I've done no research on it). Here, it is clear that Tejada was knowingly lying so these issues don't come up.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) I think the basis is he had unprotected sex with her while knowing he had AIDS. Reading the lawsuit, if he has AIDS, it appears, according to her, they found out about it at the same time. I'm telling you this is a money grab. They probably are threatening him with releasing more personal info, and would settle for much less than $15 million. She's a single mother who is used to living a very high lifestyle what with her huge home and Escalade, probably both purchased by Alomar. She runs a massage business and probably fears her lifestyle being knocked down a couple of pegs. She'll probably get something out of this just to keep skeletons out of public. Yeah, but it's not illegal to be HIV positive and have consensual sex. There's no question this is a money grab, but my point is that the case should be thrown out as long as "AIDS-phobia" is not a legit disorder.

I don't get what the basis of the suit is. She doesn't state that she felt forced into sex, or that she was raped, or that she has HIV. In fact, despite her claim that she's has many sexual encounters with Alomar while he had HIV, she never contracted it herself. The only issue is whether "AIDS-phobia" is an actual emotion disorder (I've never heard of it). Even if he was grossly negligent, she did not suffer any actual harm. I may be totally wrong about this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 11:11 AM) Obviously lying to congress is a big deal especially if you're under oath, but how is lying to investigators (assuming you're not under oath) a crime? This doesn't make sense to me. Impeding an investigation. Federally it is a crime, under state law, it may not be.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) look at how much the economy has changed just over the course of this offseason...Raul Ibanez who is a year older than Abreu got 3 years 30 mil....and now abreu signed for 1 year 5...wow I don't think that's entirely accurate. The Ibanez deal looked stupid when it was signed, and it looks even worse now. It had less to do with the economy and more to do with poor decision making, IMO. Abreu was right to expect he should get a better deal than Ibanez, but he probably threw away better money back in November. But even still, this deal probably has little to do with the economy and more to do with bargaining position. Spring training is about to start and he wants to play. Teams had no need to give an inch.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) I thought he was on the stuff in his Cleveland days, so I guess it's hypocritical to say I don't think he is on it. However, I guess I am less suspecious of him now because at least as far as I can remember, he's always been that massive. Plus, I'm a sucker in that if somebody is as nice as him, i'm not as suspecious, even though that's bad logic. I thought I'd heard his whole family is as big as he is. But then I probably heard that from Hawk...

Odd that I read this news right after reading an article about the Rangers and steroids.

Remember when Swisher's contract was seen as a positive?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 04:00 PM) Well thats not exactly true. Not every prescription drug can cause immediate death due to synergistic effects with another drug. (Im not a pharmacist or dr so im starting to get into areas that are not my expertise). I agree that if there is a significant risk of drug interaction that getting a Dr's prescription for your own safety may be necessary. But, Bonds was being given the drug by Dr's with licenses who were probably monitoring his health and the interactions of the drug far better than most Dr's monitor regular patients. Im just feel that people should be able to make their own decisions on what type of risks they are willing to assume to be successful in life. But then the problem is, how will a random person know that it's necessary unless a doctor tells them? Isn't it then easier to control the substance and prescribe it as needed rather than letting anyone use? I understand what you "feel." But in reality it doesn't work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) I personally think that adults should be able to consumer whatever they like, so long as it does not pose a threat to others, nor does it pose a significant threat of immediate death. The reason why we prescribe medicine such as penicillin is because if you let everyone take it for every cold, it would eventually create more resistant strains. Therefore it poses a threat to others to allow people to take certain drugs without Dr's approval. I have yet to see any literature on how HGH usage could negatively effect anyone except the person taking it. Does HGH have health benefits greater than cigarettes, in my opinion, yes. Therefore I believe that Bonds should have been able to take HGH, especially under the supervision of Dr's. Im not comfortable letting the govt be our "mother" and telling us what is harmful and what isnt. Maybe they can force me to each vegetables or that I should stop eating Big Macs. My problem is something that I mentioned in my last post. Any prescription could cause immediate death when mixed with other drugs. And the reason you give for prescribing penicillin is wrong. Drug resistance was not understood until well after the drug was first used. Under the logic you cite, Clorox should be by prescription because bacteria can become resistant to it. The reason it is by prescription is because people don't have a clue when they are supposed to use it or what they can use it with. HGH does have some health benefits, and, as I said earlier, it can be prescribed for the prescribed to maximize those benefits while minimizing the risks. And no, I don't have an example of how it could effect others. Further, if in fact, there are no drug interactions and it can be used fairly safely, then fine. I'll agree with you. But I won't agree that people should have access to any drugs they want.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 08:53 AM) Does she need one to have a reason to be on camera? Generally no. But they managed to make her look like s*** so...maybe?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 03:04 PM) It was reported on Sportscenter, does that count? First, someone already told me that. Second, my point was that I don't trust this is a recent offer, which I still don't believe unless there is another source. No other source has been quoted, until Dick's post. Third, B&B say that the Sox have dismissed the rumor, which I think they got from the Daily Herald (which may or may not be accurate).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) First of all its speculation that "most people wont use it" as we have no way of predicting the future. At one point people would have said "most people will never use Botulism", but now we have Botox. I said most people "don't" use it, and based on its current use (or lack thereof), I will say that there will not be enough desire for HGH to be legalized. The Mayo Clinic site you posted to specifically states that there is not enough information to form a conclusion regarding the long term effects of HGH use. I'd say you are speculating as to its risks and benefits. You have only made conclusory statements as to its health benefits. Huh? So every prescription drug should be made legal for everyone to consume? Those doctors did not "clearly believe" Bonds needed it. They clearly believed they could make money off the deal. There are people who are far more educated than I who can make a determination as when someone "needs" a drug. And to answer your question, people with high anxiety likely cannot function in society without medication. So yes, I'd call that a need. Furthermore, you have no clue what will happen if you take HGH with other drugs. Most people have no clue what they are putting in their bodies or how those substances interact.

QUOTE (Greenman @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) It was literally just on ESPN like 15 seconds ago.. Steve Phillips and Buster Olney talked about it and said unless they move Dye, which is unlikely, they doubt it happens.. So pretty much what we already know Well shows me, I guess.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) they are talking about it now. I think they are just reading posts in this thread. That's what I assumed. I was wondering if they bothered to actually call someone. The fact that this hasn't been picked up by a major sports outlet tells me there is nothing to it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) The score is reporting an offer was made. Did they cite a source? The offer was probably made in November and is just now surfacing.

I think it's an Insider article, but it's also here: Daily News Bottom of the page.

Not totally surprised. The Dodgers made a 1 year offer to Manny (which was rejected) so there is precedent in the market now. I doubt he'll accept.