Jump to content

Congressional hearing thread


rangercal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 914
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

The congressman asked him if he felt his 2002 statements were inconsistent with what he said today. Schilling didn't really answer the question.

 

Panel dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

When you couple that with the cork bat incident it's nearly impossible to believe he was doping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was RP so convincing to you?

 

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.

 

Owners, Commish are up to bat.

Selig is planting the framework. Blame the MLBPA. We wanted more effective testing. They wanted less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing that he now plays for Baltimore, do you think there's a homer conspiracy a foot with Sosa?

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGuire lost his renowed, good natured public appeal after today's hearing.

 

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?

 

This guy is royally screwed. I hope the national media tears him apart.

Edited by Flash Tizzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

You should get your facts straight before drawing those conclusions.

 

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...