Middle Buffalo

No change in my weight. Considering I've been very lazy the past few weeks, that's not so bad.

No gain or loss this week. Not bad considering that I had a really bad cold last week and my allergies kicked in this week, so I felt like crap all week up until yesterday. I plan on losing 10 lbs next week.

I gained a pound this week.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Feb 27, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Good piece of writing but I have to say that I disagree. Maybe I'm one of the few but I really don't pay attention to the numbers all that closely. I can still watch a game for the fun of it and have no idea what any of the guys' batting average is. I can still root for my favorite player just because I like him, not because he's the best. I mainly use the internet to get the information faster. Who won, what place are they in, who got traded, etc... The other reason I use it is to connect with other fans and read their thoughts on the team. There aren't too many Sox fans around me, so this is the next best thing. ^^^ This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I don't even understand some of the "new" stats that I see people talk about all the time. Billy Beane I am not. Things that have been ruined for me include the NFL (because I participate in Fantasy, and I don't even pay attention to the teams as much as the individual players) and college basketball (because it's on so much that I never feel that any individual game is worth watching). In the 80's, I used to watch the NCAA on Saturdays and all the big matchups, now I never do.

Lost 3 lbs this week. I gave up sweets & soda for Lent, so that's helped a great deal in losing weight the last three weeks. At some point, I'm going to need to get some diet advice to maintain. I don't want to be like Oprah and only get to enjoy my skinny jeans for two weeks before I'm forced back into kulots.

What I find fascinating about this stuff is that the guys who admit to using steroids or HGH pretty much get a free pass. Granted, the're not the high profile types like Clemens, McGwire, or Bonds, but still some big names. Pettite was made to look like an angel at the hearing, yet he admitted to using HGH two times in 2001. Later it came out that he also used HGH in 2004 - and he got it from his Dad. So he has some credibility issues as well. Assuming he used HGH, Clemens had to know there was a possibility that eventually he'd be outed. Why not formulate a better defense than denial and defiance beforehand? Say you used to recover from an injury, and the public forgives. Lie, even if all the evidence seems to implicate you as a user, and the public gets offended. If I'm a MLB player, and I've used HGH, I'm getting my story ready now for when I am eventually outed. I might even make a statement on my own admitting that I used for a short time for whatever reason. If Jim Thome came out and said he used HGH on the advice of a doctor or trainer to recover from a back injury, I don't think people would be outraged. Everyone uses drugs or medicine at some point to recover from illness or injury.

Lost 5 lbs this week. Already, I have abs like Debbie Clemens. I'll look like Chyna in no time.

QUOTE(DaveBrown85 @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 08:42 PM) sorry i didnt know that i had the caps lock on Did you think you accidently hit the SHIFT key with every keystroke?

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 09:23 PM) Some pretty interesting info from a Body Language Analyst: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344 Basically says Clemens exhibited several signs of deception, whereas McNamee only a few. I would be much more convinced of the analysis if I was certain that the Body Language Analyst had no prior knowledge of the situation. This woman seems to know the "facts" of this case, and it doesn't seem as if she's unbiased in the way she's viewing the tape. If (and I don't believe he is), if Clemes is innocent, showing disgust wouldn't necessarily be out of line. Stuttering over a word or having cotton mouth isn't really that uncommon, especially when you are being grilled by a panel of people who are out to make an example of you. Regarding the hearing, one of the Reps kept bringing up evidence that MacNamee had changed his story and lied several times. However, the Rep was citing newspaper and magazine articles. Does he really think being asked questions by a reporter, and being grilled by Congress under oath are the same?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 12:33 PM) He was admonished for flying her in and meeting with her before giving up her information to investigators. OK. I'm just saying that it's funny that Clemens was admonished for meeting with a witness, but it's alright for Representatives to meet with him before the hearing. You'd think that sort of contact would be off limits, too. What was the point of meeting with Representatives before the hearing? Were the ones he met with the same ones who lobbed softball questions to him and grilled MacNamee? I'm pretty sure Clemens is lying. I suspected even before the Mitchell Report that he was a user, but it doesn't really appear that there is evidence that he used. There are witness accounts that seem to match, but MacNamee has been inconsistent, and things like the Canseco party (where everyone but MacNamee says that he was not there - including Canseco and the Toronto broadcasts from that day) help Clemens' case. It doesn't really seem like there's actual evidence that Clemens cheated, so he probably did well to defend himself.

It's funny that Clemens was admonished for meeting with his nanny (the one who may have testified that he was at Canseco's party in 1998) a few days ago, but Clemens has been taking meetings with Representatives for the past few weeks leading up to the hearing. Another weird thing is that the lawyers for the witnesses are forbidden to speak. There was a long testimony by the Rep. from Mass. about the Army doctor reading the MRI reports and conluding that a mass on Clemens' butt was consistent with Winstrol injections, but Clemens' lawyer was not allowed to clarify anything for the panel. It's kind of a stretch to assume that Clemens will be able to represent himself well against what I assume is a panel Reps who were educated as lawyers. I'm not defending Clemens. It just seems that this process of deposing a witness is somewhat unfair.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) Because deep down, I don't think people really care. The media is trying to blow this up into something bigger than it actually is. People should care. Not everyone needs to care about the way modern ballplayers have messed with the records. Not everyone cares about HR records, etc. However, if you think of the history of baseball and consider that prior to 1990 or so, very few players had prolific HR numbers. The top guys would typically hit 45 homers max. in a given season, and they were paid accordingly. With the advent of the steroid era, more and more players were reaching high HR numbers. They were then paid as HR hitters. As the HR numbers went up and more players were hitting 40+ HRs, they were demanding more money. The end result is that ticket prices went up to support the increased payrolls, which came about as a result of increased numbers, which were the result of illegal performance enhancing drugs. So the loser in all this is the fan. Fans who care about the history of baseball and grew up memorizing statistics, and casual fans who just like to go to the park and watch the game were both impacted by the pervasiveness of steroids and HGH in baseball. Regarding the Mitchell Report, I can't understand why someone like Clemens (who sure seems guilty- though benefits by going up against a less than credible witness) doesn't admit to using HGH. He could say that he used it to recover from assorted injuries and only used it sparingly. He could also say that he read reports that told of the benefits of HGH, and that when he used the substance, it was under the watchful eye of a trainer who was employed by MLB. He could also say that when he used, HGH was not illegal (I think that's the case, but could be wrong). It seems like it wouldn't put into question the last 8 or 9 years of his career. I'm not saying that it would totally clear his name, but it would look much better to say he used only to recover from specific injuries - not to cheat.

Friday, I weighed in a couple pounds lighter. Lost 2 more over the weekend, but might have made a mistake by indulging in a plate of potato salad today. I'll know more tomorrow. Just in case, I'm leaving a plate out on the counter tonight, and I'll eat it tomorrow and shed a few pounds the old fashioned way all day tomorrow.

First trek to the gym today went well. Felt the burn. Probably 2 or 3 dress sizes smaller already, though for consistency, I'll take those measurements in the AM.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) Haha, Hampton is such a clueless retard and it's proven yet again. The whole reason the Giants won was they established pressure with ONLY their front 4 early, then blitzed Brady after he was beaten up and confused to the point where he wasn't getting good reads. The Bears exclusive blitzing, 46 defense for 60 minutes style would have been beaten to a pulp by New England. That's not the Bears fault, it's just how it is, just like the Bears would have killed any of those Packers teams from the 60's. Football players just get bigger and faster and better every year, which is why comparing teams from different eras is stupid and pointless. The 85 Bears were not smaller and slower than today's players. They match up quite well physically with modern players. Go back to the teams from the 70s and 60s, and your argument about the speed/size factor is much better. Basically, as Hampton said, the 85 Bears' strengths were running the ball and pressuring the QB. That plays well into the weaknesses of the 07 Patriots. Who would win? I wouldn't bet against the 85 Bears against any team.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) couldn't hurley be dead??? This flashforward took place before last year's(with Jack's beard etc...) I'm pretty sure Hurley will be burried in a piano case.

South Sider wins "The Big Game." http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...1,2401735.story

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) If this was the original "burritos as big as your head" La Bamba on Green St., then it must have gone and got classy long after my departure. I ate there at least 2x a week for 2 years. Best chorizo burrito I ever had, especially after a night of knocking back a few pints of the blonde in the black skirt (that would be Guinness) at Murphy's. I greatly miss all the great the neighborhood burrito joints in Chicago. Some of them were excellent. A very good taqueria finally opened up down here last year near my work, and I ate there at least weekly until I started this $%@*%! New Year's diet. No. The "EAT" sign was outside truck-stop near the mall. CC talking Mexican food had me thinking La Bamba - which was on Green St, but later relocated a block or so down to 6th St (?) just off Green. Incidently, the owners of La Bamba were from Chicago.

6'2" 220lbs (somehow gained 15lbs in the past few months). Would like to get down to 190 or just a few pounds less. Joined a gym today. Lent diet starts Wednesday. Giving up sweets/soda. Considering giving up meat, but I don't really want to be eating beans and peanut butter constantly to get protein.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) There's a real good Mexican place in Woodridge on the NE corner of 75th and Woodward. It's called Los Arcos, but the sign above the place simply says Mexican Food. You have me craving a La Bamba burrito. There was a place in Champaign that had a sign that was visible from quite a distance that said "EAT." The simplicity and directness of the sign always made me want to "eat" there. For months we talked about going there - it took some time because the place looked like a dump. Finally, we worked up the courage to go in, and to our great disappointment, the place had some class and was kind of costly. We decided to take our money elsewhere. Probably went Stackin' at Homestretch.

I went to hang up my flag today, and I checked the handy "Flag Holiday" brochure that came with the flag. To my surprise, today is not a flag holiday. Not sure if the brochure is out-dated, but I only bought the flag a few years ago. I hung up the flag anyway. In honor of MLK, it was well hung.

QUOTE(ottawa_sox @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) The conversation was taped by Roger and presented by Roger and his lawyer. If MacNamee said "You know you did it!", do you think the tape might have been edited for our ears? MacNamee is as contrite as possible because he spilled the beans to save his ass. He was looking to crucify himself to appease the great Rocket. I don't know why they played the tape. It proves nothing. Roger's squirming says it all Sure. Also, if I was Clemens, I wouldn't have been so composed during the phone call. He's obviously mad, but he's very monotone the entire time. It's like he's saying, "Listen, I need you to retract what you said, I just can't say it. Are you too dumb to understand that I need you to lie for me?" Clemens is a fiery guy, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have been SCREAMING at MacNamee if MacNamee had lied. Guilty.

QUOTE(Brian @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) Can Clemens tape the conversation without MacNamee knowing? I'm not sure now. Is it possible that Clemens isn't lying? MacNamee never refutes anything Clemens said in the phone conversation. I would have expected him to say, "You know you did it!" or something. I still don't believe Clemens, but I'm less sure now.

I missed it. Any good? I heard previews on the radio. I love when Mick Wallace asked him if he ever used, and Clemens said, "No." Wallace, "Swear?" Clemens, "Swear." What, are they 10 years old?

She's really unlucky that she's manic and has money (and, therefore, the enablers that come with that in Hollywood). Mix that with drug/alcohol abuse, not good. Basically, there's no stopping her until she hits rock bottom. I don't think having reporters and photographers following her helps much either.