HuskyCaucasian Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Rock on Sanchez! She just ripped them a new one. ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I just started watching about 15 min ago. Has McGwire answered a single damn question?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 11:09 PM) I just started watching about 15 min ago. Has McGwire answered a single damn question??  Yes: "I'm not going to talk about the past." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Scoring card: JC: B+ He's effectively been able to do a 180 deg turn from his opinion as expressed in th book Juiced. The clearest example of this is a congressman stating "we'll have to wait for the sequel then". Â CS: C- When we first learn he would be added to the task force it seemed like the best of both worlds (top player rep + zero tolerance desire). Now he sounds like a corporate stooley speaking in mission statements in Fehr's office. Â RP: A+ Very convincing in his denial of roids usage & his advocacy for Olympic standards testing. Likely to be added to the task force. Â SS: C I don't think his appearance here does anything to change public opinion of whether he used or didn't use. The cork bat reference hurts his credibility regardless of what he says. Â MM: INC It matters more what McGuire does after this then what he says today. He wants us to forget his past. Fine. Then give us reason to do so in the present & near future. If he becomes an anti-doping spokesperson I'll give him a B. If he goes off & hides again I give him a D & I think that could hurt his HOF chances. Â FT: A - He was praised for appearing, honored by being a member of the task force, didn't have to convince anyone in his denial, & CLEARLY does not believe the current program is enough or is working. Stark contrast to Schilling. Â Question for fans. After hearing the panel discussions who do you feel would serve the zero-tolerance committee better? Palmiero or Schilling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Â "I'm not here to talk about my past." Edited March 17, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Serrano is a big time baseball fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 11:11 PM) Question for fans. After hearing the panel discussions who do you feel would serve the zero-tolerance committee better? Palmiero or Schilling?  Palmiero. Schilling is too much of a company man.  Congressman (Pedro) Serrano is speaking now. Big baseball fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Over or recess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 They trapped Schilling at the very end making reference to his 2002 quotes that paint a picture similar to the widespread usage Jose refers to in his book. Yet today he basically denied Jose's belief it was widespread. Â The congressman asked him if he felt his 2002 statements were inconsistent with what he said today. Schilling didn't really answer the question. Â Panel dismissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 11:19 PM) Over or recess? Â Recess. I think Selig is coming up soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringfieldFan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Regarding Sosa's statements - Is there any possibility that he lied by denying using steroids because he doesn't think American jurisprudence would apply to him? Â SFF Edited March 17, 2005 by SpringfieldFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(longshot7 @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:54 PM) HA! You got me. I still disagree however. Where are the Congressional hearings on all the other drugs (amphetamines, coke, uppers) that players are taking? This is such a trendy scandal. It's like Claude Rains in Casablanca saying "I am SHOCKED to know there's gambling going on here!"  And steroids aren't all that bad for people. Sure, if you take them like there's no tomorrow, you'll die - but that's true with any drug. But if you take them (and there's many, many different kinds - new ones won't even be detectable by the tests that baseball (or the olympics) administer) under a doctor's supervision, and stay on a program - they are very helpful. I've taken them - for asthma issues. To condemn all steroids justl like that is very shortsighted.  And they don't help you hit a baseball. One iota.  Did you take ANABOLIC steroids for asthma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Someone on Comcast Sportsnet just made a great comment and I want to run with it. SOmeone should have flat out asked Mac: "where were you born?" and see how he replies. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The big wigs are up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 11:11 PM) Scoring card: JC: B+ He's effectively been able to do a 180 deg turn from his opinion as expressed in th book Juiced. The clearest example of this is a congressman stating "we'll have to wait for the sequel then".  CS: C- When we first learn he would be added to the task force it seemed like the best of both worlds (top player rep + zero tolerance desire). Now he sounds like a corporate stooley speaking in mission statements in Fehr's office.  RP: A+ Very convincing in his denial of roids usage & his advocacy for Olympic standards testing. Likely to be added to the task force.  SS: C I don't think his appearance here does anything to change public opinion of whether he used or didn't use. The cork bat reference hurts his credibility regardless of what he says.  MM: INC It matters more what McGuire does after this then what he says today. He wants us to forget his past. Fine. Then give us reason to do so in the present & near future. If he becomes an anti-doping spokesperson I'll give him a B. If he goes off & hides again I give him a D & I think that could hurt his HOF chances.  FT: A - He was praised for appearing, honored by being a member of the task force, didn't have to convince anyone in his denial, & CLEARLY does not believe the current program is enough or is working. Stark contrast to Schilling.  Question for fans. After hearing the panel discussions who do you feel would serve the zero-tolerance committee better? Palmiero or Schilling?  Why was RP so convincing to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I'm dissapointed in one aspect of that panel's discussion. Unlike the rest of them which have a roid usage based primarily in rumor or self-admission McGuire & Sosa both have actual reported events. Â With respect to Mac it's the fact Andro was found in his locker. It was legal both in the game & in the land at the time so I can sympathize with Mac. Â With respect to Sosa it was the reported incident that he had 25,000 in cash in a paper bag stolen from him south of the border. Now a reporter did a rare thing: investigative journalism. He found it was not uncommon for athletes to bring cash to that location in a similar manner to buy sports enhancing dope. Â Sammy did not take the 5th. If this committee had a responsibility to find the source of the dope why didn't they throw that question at Sammy? Â When you couple that with the cork bat incident it's nearly impossible to believe he was doping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Wait! bud said that he DIDNT know about steroids until the late 90s. he just admited he knew about them around the time of the strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Why was RP so convincing to you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Â He had strong body language & advocated the strongest testing policy immediately. That was a departure from both Sosa & Schilling. As an active player that's a convincing argument. Â Owners, Commish are up to bat. Selig is planting the framework. Blame the MLBPA. We wanted more effective testing. They wanted less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think it would be great if this could turn into a huge embarrassment for Bud Selig and he is forced out of his position by the owners or his own accord. I know I know wishful thinking but hey a guy can dream right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Seeing that he now plays for Baltimore, do you think there's a homer conspiracy a foot with Sosa? Â Here's another question I wanted to ask. Mr, Sosa we now know that both Bonds & Mac most likely were using performance enhancement substances in their historic homerun seasons. Are we to believe that you are the only person in 30 yrs who beat Roger Maris' single season HR record solely on his God given talent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) McGuire lost his renowed, good natured public appeal after today's hearing. Â He is "retired;" thus can't comment on current drug policies, "doesn't want to talk about the past;" so questions about his career or those of teammates are avoided; and finally, insists on "becoming a spokesmen" yet can't describe the effects of steroids. Why would any kid quit steroids if Mac fails to provide a reason? Â This guy is royally screwed. I hope the national media tears him apart. Edited March 17, 2005 by Flash Tizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 WOW! THis guys is slinging mud! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Ugh, Donald Fehr is on now. Me no like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Last guy made major mistakes saying there is no reason for legitimate criticism, basically implying Congress has no idea what its talking about. Â Fehr should not bring up 4th Amendment rights, those only apply to GOVT. action. Â MLB is a private employer. Â SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) Ummm...They (the medical panel) already stated that medically prescribed steroids are 10-100% lower than the dosage used by athletes to cheat. They aren't comdeming those instances. Â You should get your facts straight before drawing those conclusions. Â But it's totally subjective - and dependent on what athlete, what drug, and the dosage. All I'm saying is that not all steroids are bad - again, not all athletes abuse steroids by taking them - did McGwire or Bonds or Canseco - I don't see them having roid rage and killing people. Â But again - who cares how much they did? If someone wants to inject something into their body, as long as it doesn't affect me, they should be allowed to. I'm sorry for those parents that lost their children - but to blame steroids for their deaths (which were suicides, not overdoses) is failing to take responsibility for their own shortcomings as parents. Why didn't they teach their kids different? It's like those parents in the 80's who sued Judas Priest for their kids' suicides. It's just representative of what's taking place in our society with people refusing to take responsibility for their own shortcomings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.