Soxbadger

I trust you Rock, no matter what anyone else might say about people who went to the Ohio State.

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.

Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath? Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently.

I laugh because of how the 2 situations are being handled. Bonds is a criminal. Clemens is non-issue. Both have done basically the same thing (well Clemens is worse, Clemens could have taken the 5th or even not testified. He chose to testify and chose to flat out lie), and the way that the govt treats them just shows how much of a joke our criminal system is. If youre "good guy" Clemens, we will just let your lies slide because we know everyone commits a little perjury. If youre "bad guy" Bonds, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law because perjury is the worst possible crime and completely undermines the entire judicial system, so to let even 1 instance of perjury slide would be the end of the US justice system. (Previous statements obvious hyperbole.) I think the fact Bonds was forced against his will to testify versus Clemens going out of his way to testify, makes me personally much less upset about what Bonds did. The system of the Grand Jury is why I think that Bonds perjury is completely bunk, Clemens was not in a Grand Jury. I do think that the entire PED, steroids, is a joke and that neither of them should have to face consequences with baseball for something that baseball encouraged or at minimum turned a blind eye. I just find it hilarious how different Clemens and Bonds are treated.

This thread is making me wish the NFL draft was tomorrow.

Thanks, I saw him at the WR skills competition and he reminded me a lot of Boldin (who I used to love at FSU and thought would be amazing in the pros. I can remember against Georgia he had to play QB due to injuries, it was a shame he couldnt throw to himself.) For the Bears im hoping they can get BPA in the 1st and then some how get a guy like Nicks in the 2nd. I feel that there are a lot of Wr's in this draft so the possibility of a good one slipping is definitely there. He just looked so physical and had great hands.

The defamation suit was nothing to start. In order for Clemens to win, he would have had to prove malice, that Mcamee actually knew the statements that he was making were false. If Mcamee even can say "Well I thought it was steroids" he basically has won. The defamation suit was a stunt to begin with, some people ask the question "Well if Roger is telling the truth why doesnt he sue for defamation" or reach the conclusion "If he isnt suing for defamation it must be true." When you have a Roger Clemens, who can pay any legal fee in the world, some times you you file a lawsuit that is loser, just for the public perception. The real question is, will the Fed go after Clemens for perjury. Im pretty sure that under oath he denied using steroids at the House hearings. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/r...to_strongl.html Its such a great unintended pun too. Let me be CLEAR. Hahaa

A few months ago I made a comment that Abreu may be the guy the Sox bring in. It seems KW has liked him in the past.

Palehose, Youre an UNC fan right? If so what do you think of Hicks? Id love him in the 2nd for the Bears.

You probably will not find a larger proponent for Marijuana legalization than myself, but I just dont think its a good argument to get into "What adverse health effects are." I think that Marijuana probably has some negative impact on certain people, and I think if you try and focus on "Marijuana doesnt have any adverse effects" that eventually they will find some one who developed something bad, and use it as the proof to keep Marijuana illegal. I think that the argument should be based on Cigarettes and Alcohol cause death, etc. Anything that is less harmful than those 2, which has more benefit than those 2, should be legal. To me its a really simple equation.

Im not talking anabolic steroids, the type of stuff Bonds etc are taking are not going to cause death etc, the side effects are limited. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030 That case is going to be a joke. How can they prove that in that picture it was actually Marijuana and the location? Just because he admitted to using Marijuana does not mean that picture is actually him using Marijuana. Just another case of a govt official trying to become famous on crap.

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. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024 Fair enough there are very limited health benefits, it does not really change the argument that HGH which has health benefits and less risk should be illegal, while Alcohol with limited health benefits and high risk should be legal. Well there is the problem. Bonds was getting his drugs from Dr's who clearly believed that Bonds needed to use it. Who creates the definition of need? Is it only those who will die, only those who will suffer? What if taking the drug makes you perform better, is that need? People get prescriptions from Dr's for high anxiety etc, do they really need it? Im not comfortable letting the govt decide who needs what, Im more comfortable letting adults decide and let them bear the consequences.

Okay so why not rewrite the law that they can only be taken to the US, and they have to then be given the exact same rights a US citizen would be given? Oh the reason they wont do that is because the entire point of rendition is to take them to secret holding facilities, so that they can scare them into talking. These are people living on the street of European countries, this isnt BIN LADEN. There is Interpol, this is the US taking people off the street who they deem "dangerous". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1395637.ece http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=97980316 This isnt ever going to be legitimate as long as the sovereign nation is not involved. And when the nation is involved, its not rendition. Therefore Im against the policy of rendition in all circumstances where it is merely for the purpose of detaining and questioning. I will leave a very small exception for cases such as Hitler, where if you were to have found him anywhere I believe that any country could validly bring him in and try him. But thats different, they actually would be taking Hitler to trial, most of these people are just being questioned for information about other people. These arent mass murders wanted by Interpol, Italy wouldnt care if we nabbed people like them, they start to care when we just arbitrarily take people.

Im not sure you understand what rendition is. Rendition means that the US goes into another country like Italy, kidnaps an Italian citizen and takes them to a third country for interrogation (such as Afghanistan.) Do you think it would be okay for Italy to come to the United States, kidnap an US citizen, and take them to Cuba for questioning? We are not getting the foreign countries approval, in fact we are usually doing it against the foreign countries wishes. There is no problem with Italy, arresting an Italian or giving the US permission to arrest a terrorist. This is the US going into Italy either: A) Without Italy knowing or B ) With express instructions from Italy not to. Balta, I think there are all sorts of sovereignty rules and I dont think that the US has the right to kidnap foreign citizens unless they are given authorization from the foreign govt. Would it be okay for Iran to send an operative to the US and kidnap US citizens for being "terrorists" against Iran? Or would it be okay for Palestine to kidnap Israeli's for being "terrorists"? If they get the countries permission that is fine, the problem is this is usually expressly against the countries orders, and these are countries like Italy.

He has abandoning those who helped make sure that he won, and people like me will not forget that. The only legitimate argument I could see being made is that its the equivalent of being taken down to the Police Station for questioning and that they must be returned within X hours. Even then it sets a very dangerous precedent. If the US can kidnap foreign citizens, can foreign countries kidnap US citizens?

Here is an odd Super Bowl story from Rotoworld:

In the second round, if he was available, Id be interested in Hakeem Nicks WR out of UNC. I saw him at the skills competition and he looked pretty solid. The only question may be his 40 time, but he was extremely productive at UNC.

lol I doubt that the Anti-drug squad is as vocal in this thread as in other ones. The idea that marijuana should be legalized is much more main-stream than HGH and other performance enhancing drugs should be legal. But the point still remains, just because the US says something is legal or illegal, does not really make it right or wrong. The US govt said that slavery was right, that not letting woman vote was right, and so on and so forth. So just because the US govt says Marijuana is bad, doesnt make me just blindly believe them. I know many people in the US believe that the govt can do no wrong, that is why I use hyperbolic examples to show just how horribly wrong the US govt can be. Rosa Parks situation is a great example of just how ridiculous laws can be, and why people should question the laws and never just blindly follow.

I cant believe people are really taking my Lil Wayne remark so seriously. It was 75% joke, 25% truth. When I heard the statement over the summer I thought it would be funny if Phelps smoked. I figured that it would be unlikely that a swimmer was a consistent user, but that I imagined Phelps had at least tried it. Its really irrelevant it was more just something about all of my friends than anything serious. You obviously can not just judge people based on a few things. But if you asked me about almost any NCAA athlete, Id say that they smoked at least 1 time (Tebow included.) I just more meant that with a gold medal swimmer it seems unlikely, but that some of Phelps personality traits suggested that maybe he did smoke. (Edit) I dont have any friends who listen to country, only rap and rock.

Im making the comparison that through history laws have been made that have been later deemed unconstitutional. Black people were treated unfairly in the US for hundreds of years, the idea that the govt could regulate what was ingested by adults is relatively new in comparison. I believe that it is unconstitutional for the govt to regulate what adults ingest, unless there is a clear threat to public safety, or the drug is so powerful that ingestion can lead to immediate death. Other than that, I believe the govt does not have the right to stop an adult from taking things. I think the case and point of this is alcohol. Alcohol is one of the only known substances to be harmful to basically every human organ, there are no health benefits, yet I can go buy as much alcohol as I want. On the other hand, whatever Roger Clemens was taking seems to have actual health benefits. It made his body stronger and him able to recover faster, he could compete at the age of 40 like he was much younger. Why is the govt restricting drugs that make people feel better, that make them recover quicker? I dont even hear arguments that what Bonds or Clemens did is "harmful" or will kill them, so what is the problem? And even if the drugs were going to kill them isnt that Bonds or Clemens choice? If I want to smoke cigarettes I can, yet if I want to take HGH, I cant? Do I believe that some one taking HGH is going to be a danger to society? No Do I believe some one taking HGH is more likely to commit a crime? No Do I believe that some one taking HGH is more likely to hurt some one else? No Now, why is HGH illegal where as alcohol is not? From the mayo clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030 Notice the side effects are very mild compared to anabolic steroids. Now ive looked into the cream and the clear, they seem to be TGH. I have not found any scientific information on those drugs. I understand that many people in the United States feel that if the govt says its wrong or bad, that it must be and that we shouldnt ever second guess or question the govt. But I am not one of those people, I believe that the govt has been wrong many times (not letting certain people vote, not letting certain people have equal rights, prohibition, etc etc) and I think that the people should constantly question the govt and make the govt prove that the laws they are creating are valid and constitutional. I believe that adults should be able to do whatever they want to themselves, provided they are not posing a risk to others. I so far have seen very little evidence to suggest that what Clemens or Bonds did put any other humans at risk.

I guess I dont think its a huge stretch to figure that some one who attends a school notorious for drug use (Michigan), who is a millionaire and who listens to Lil Wayne, may have tried marijuana. Conversely if he attended some Ivy league school, listened to Mozart and lived a life dedicated to poverty, Id probably be less likely to figure he was into weed. Then again, I think you could just look at him and see that hes a little bit faded.

I dont know how you reach that conclusion that listening to rap = doing drugs. But, based on a lot of factors I just assumed that he was probably a smoker as opposed to a drinker.

I figured he was smoking since I heard he liked to warm up to Lil Wayne... Im sure what Phelps was thinking is hes a young millionaire.

All of that is my opinion, I dont even understand why you are arguing against my opinion. I dont say your opinion that scuff balls being not as bad as steroids is wrong. Now on to the substance. Yes I have said his illegal acts should not be considered illegal, just like I dont think Rosa Parks "illegal act" of not sitting in the back of the bus should be considered illegal. I believe there is a fundamental problem with the govt creating arbitrary rules about what adults can ingest without proof that it is some how going to harm society. I never said that there was no "morality clause", I said that I could not find it. If you look at my posts, I quote the eligibility requirements and link the url that you posted. It was merely the fact that I did not continue reading to the voting section because I figured that "moral" clause would be in the "eligibility section." Sorry for being honest and saying that I could not find it, and asking if anyone else could so that I could review it. After I looked at it, Im pretty sure that I said they could legitimately keep Bonds from the hall. I never said the evidence wasnt enough, Ive never even commented on the evidence outside of the perjury case, in which ive stated from the evidence ive seen it does not appear to be enough. No one has shown me more evidence where there is a transcript or testimony of another witness saying "I heard Bonds say he was taking roids." Ive seen no smoking gun in the perjury case. Once again my opinion. Steroids may not have a large impact on performance and there is some question as to what negative side effects there may be to the "cream" and the "clear". I am not a Dr or Pharmacist, so Im not really qualified to speak on this issue. I have seen many different scientific tests http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/do_steroids_h...s_hit_home_runs Here is an interesting quote from a professional player: Now I am not a professional baseball player nor am I a Pharmacist, nor am I scientist. But I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the steroids Bonds took are far worse than anything that has ever been done in baseball. So its not about giving, its about why do you have such a problem that people may have a different opinion than you?

Today is a slow day at work (haha). No thats not my argument at all. My argument is that if cheating prevents you from being in the HOF, then all cheaters should be kept out. I am basing my opinion, on how I would vote, based on what other voters have done before. They voted in cheaters, they voted in bad guys (Cobb), so why if I was a voter would I diverge from what has always been? And thats a fine opinion, but I find what Bonds did less wrong than what Ford, Perry, etc did. First of all, I dont believe that govt has a constitutional right to control what an adult ingests unless it poses a significant risk to other people. Second of all, some people dont think steroids are a big deal and dont think it has a major impact on the performance of a baseball player. So in my opinion what they did was worse.