The Critic Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 07:29 AM) McGwire is taking a public beating after the testimony and I'm not sure its deserved. Do you believe Sosa and Palmeiro? I damn sure don't believe Sosa as he is a proven liar (leaving game early). Raffy, I'm undecided on yet. He never appeared on the steroid horizon till the Canseco book came out. Raffy seemed to be very adamant about his denial and looked right at the congressional panel as emphatically denied using. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, at this point. But, back to McGwire. The one thing you know he didn't do yesterday is lie. He said nothing of substance, so he couldn't have lied. For the moment, the panel let him get away with and did not even force him to either answer the question or invoke the fifth. I believe MM did exactly what he was told to do by his attorney, and he can't be faulted for that. The congressmen could have and should have forced McGwire to either s*** or get off the pot. I think the reason McGwire's taking so much heat is that he had made emphatic public denials about steroids, up to a day or two before the hearings, but when asked under oath, he said nothing, shook his head meekly, and didn't want to "talk about the past". Believe them or not, the others at least said SOMETHING. But for McGwire to turn into a lamb under oath is pretty damning in the court of public opinion. I know I turned to my wife and said "yeah, he definitely used"....not that I thought he hadn't..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I wrote this in another thread. If you read Sammy's denial carefully, he's not lying. The wording is interesting and he leaves it open for him to be able to play dumb later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 08:47 AM) I wrote this in another thread. If you read Sammy's denial carefully, he's not lying. The wording is interesting and he leaves it open for him to be able to play dumb later. I think I recall your post. The key word getting Sammy of the hook is "illegal", correct? That won't fly because while anabolic steroids were not "illegal" within the confines of MLB, the are illegal within the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(The Critic @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 08:40 AM) I think the reason McGwire's taking so much heat is that he had made emphatic public denials about steroids, up to a day or two before the hearings, but when asked under oath, he said nothing, shook his head meekly, and didn't want to "talk about the past". Believe them or not, the others at least said SOMETHING. But for McGwire to turn into a lamb under oath is pretty damning in the court of public opinion. I know I turned to my wife and said "yeah, he definitely used"....not that I thought he hadn't..... I blame congress for not forcing his hand, but certainly see your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:54 PM) I think I recall your post. The key word getting Sammy of the hook is "illegal", correct? That won't fly because while anabolic steroids were not "illegal" within the confines of MLB, the are illegal within the USA. True, but I don't know how the question was asked, or if it was even a reply to a question. So, yes, he could play dumb and say "well, when I said illegal, I MEANT at that particular time in baseball". He also says he never injected or had anyone else inject him with anything, so maybe he took them orally or used a cream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) A lot of interesting things here. Baseball's leaders came off as complete assclowns. Bud Selig gave some of the most self-serving answers of all of them. He didn't want this issue in public just as much as anyone else. He could have made this a public issue, or at worst, he has the ability to enact these kind of rules for the good of the game, without subjecting them to collective bargining. If he really wanted something done, he could have done it. And as a former used car salesman, he knows all of the backdoors. I agree that the MLB leaders looked bad especially Manfred. But I think the union looked worse. Schilling's elitist attidtude really got annoying and Congress showed it. Fehr took the brunt of it when Selig said I wanted a tougher policy but the union wouldn't go for it. While it's somewhat of a "he said this and I said that" arguement, Selig has some basis for fact that they instituted a more strict policy in the minor which he did not need to negotiate with the union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 By the way, I can't remember the last time my TV entertained me as much as it did last night. Got home at like 5:45, put the replay on, looked up and it was 11:00 PM.!! Best stuff since 9-11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I watched some more of the hearings this morning and I have to agree 150% with Yas.. I wish they would have forced more answers out of them, especially Mark. But like I said earlier.. his actions at that table buried him. If anyone had a doubt before they have got to be clear now. One other thing I just can't get over is Curt and his BS. I honestly have never really paid much attention to him, but I never thought he was that much of an asshole. I thought he was really going out of his way to be disrespectful with some of his snide remarks. Really pushing the envelope to see what he could get away with. I really did not like the way they took the opportunity to s*** on Jose. If he lied about you.. take it up with him. They aren't. That speaks loud and clear to me. I watched Raffy's statement over and over... and I am even more convinced that he used. Totally rehearsed. I believe he's clean now.. but I definitely think he used in the past. I'm going to watch Selig and Co again tonight.. I really liked the way that they were going after them last night. Loved that they caught them in some BS. Overall... as I said before.. I didn't see this as the whitchhunt it was called. I think congress is sincere in wanting to clean things up. And I think it's needed because I don't believe MLB is capable of doing it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 09:07 AM) By the way, I can't remember the last time my TV entertained me as much as it did last night. Got home at like 5:45, put the replay on, looked up and it was 11:00 PM.!! Best stuff since 9-11. LOL.. I was obsessed. I watched it all friggin day while at work.. watched it when I got home.. then set the Tivo (for some reason it cut off after the players first break) so Jim could watch it tonight and ended up watching it for another 2 hours... Then watched more of it this morning while working out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyho7476 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 (edited) I listened all day, and then missed out on the Selig stuff...i did hear about the Pete Rose comparison and how ridiculous steroid punishment is when compared with gambling. Steff, what other good stuff came out of the Selig/Fehr/alderson panel? I don't want to try and read this whole thread. And where are they replaying that last panel? What time,etc? Edited March 18, 2005 by tonyho7476 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 09:12 AM) I listened all day, and then missed out on the Selig stuff...i did hear about the Pete Rose comparison and how ridiculous steroid punishment is when compared with gambling. Steff, what other good stuff came out of the Selig/Fehr/alderson panel? I don't want to try and read this whole thread. Ya know what.. I'm going to watch it again with Jim and I'll write a summary. I honestly can't remember everything and I do have to get some work done today.. LOL. I'm pretty sure the transcripts will be (or might even already be) avaliable thought.. maybe on the C-Span website if you want to read them. They, Manford especially (who I think is a total and complete asswhipe) got their asses handed to them several times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 09:12 AM) And where are they replaying that last panel? What time,etc? They will be relpaying it again on C-Span at 10am Sunday morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyho7476 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Cool, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 As one of the congressman said, this the first inning of an extra inning ballgame. McGwire may have used his "Get Out of Jail Free" card yesterday. Next time, he may not be so lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 03:16 PM) They will be relpaying it again on C-Span at 10am Sunday morning. I'm all over it, get the tape ready. The highlight had to be "Mr. McGwire, how would you know steroids are bad for you"? I have never seen an athlete or anyone in general look so guilty and stumped all at once. This is big baseball and sports history, I'm glad I was around to see it. Classic stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I hope that Congress bothers to send Frank a questionaire with all the questions they asked the other members of the panel with. But right now Frank remains in the eyes of the public the cleanest MVP of the past 20 yrs. I thought that quote by the congressman in the last panel was profound. Over the past 30 yrs more than 1/2 of the MVP's of the league are suspected of doping. That's like dropping a nuc on the record books when you considered how many of these guys broke records. Schilling looked worse than Fehr in his defense of the current policy. On the day I don't think two guys looked more pathetic than Schilling & Manfred. Why didn't Fehr coach Schilling in the progressive discipline defense? He would have sounded like less of a hack for the MLBPA. Someone mentioned above that even if player's filed defamation of character suits against Jose the odds are against them winning. I don't think that matters. This is all about the court of public opinion. Odds are most of those suits would be settled out of court. Mac looked bad no doubt, but I don't think he looked worse than Schilling. In Mac's evasiveness he did nothing to hurt his credibility. Schilling did a lot to hurt his. It's public knowledge Mac was a steroid user. He's public acknowledged his use of Andro & we all now that once it enters the body it acts just like an ano roid. There's no need to make him say that. I too remain undecided on Raffy. His numbers are not monster enough to suspect him & if he had never been mentioned in Canseco's book I would never have thought of him as using roids. Mr Sosa, why were you carrying a paper bag full of 25K in a DR area well known for athletes buying sports dope? Until congress asks Sosa that question & Sosa provides a reasonable answer he remains in my juiced list. He lied about the corked bat. He lied about leaving early on fan appreciation day. Why would it surprise us that he would lie about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I keep hearing how Schilling looked arrogant, rude and slimey. I didn't see that at all. He was the most eloquent speaker and chose his words very carefully and didn't get suckered into a corner like the others. He seemed to impressed Congress, they even joked that he sounded like a politician. He's a player rep, right? The guy doesn't want anyone else involved and feels baseball can fix the problem itself. Maybe that's naive or just plain stupid, but he seems sincere in believing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 10:06 AM) I keep hearing how Schilling looked arrogant, rude and slimey. I didn't see that at all. He was the most eloquent speaker and chose his words very carefully and didn't get suckered into a corner like the others. He seemed to impressed Congress, they even joked that he sounded like a politician. He's a player rep, right? The guy doesn't want anyone else involved and feels baseball can fix the problem itself. Maybe that's naive or just plain stupid, but he seems sincere in believing it. I don't see that as a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 04:09 PM) I don't see that as a compliment. A lot of people would agree with you. It seemed like Schilling was the only guy they couldn't corner and they seemed to realize it. He and Canseco actually looked the best. Palmeiro did OK. Mac got torched and Sammy looked plain lost and stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 I think they burned him good on his quotes from an 02 SI article. I also think he was a asshole for attacking Jose when Jose didn't say anything about him in his book. Made him look desperate and brought it to my attention that he was trying to make the hearing about discrediting Jose and not about making the penalties tougher. I also think he was disrespectful when asked why should congress believe that they would do anything now comparing it to 30 years ago... "well, I wasn't around 30 years ago..." No s*** sherlock... the question was easily answered with a "because it needs to stop". IMO, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 04:18 PM) I think they burned him good on his quotes from an 02 SI article. I also think he was a asshole for attacking Jose when Jose didn't say anything about him in his book. Made him look desperate and brought it to my attention that he was trying to make the hearing about discrediting Jose and not about making the penalties tougher. I also think he was disrespectful when asked why should congress believe that they would do anything now comparing it to 30 years ago... "well, I wasn't around 30 years ago..." No s*** sherlock... the question was easily answered with a "because it needs to stop". IMO, of course. I had no problem with any of it. Schilling was gonna have his say. If Jose can dish it, he better be able to take it. You wanna talk, let's talk. About the 30 years ago, again fair answer. He was indirectly saying that those were different people involved, so that's why he should be believed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 10:25 AM) I had no problem with any of it. Schilling was gonna have his say. If Jose can dish it, he better be able to take it. You wanna talk, let's talk. About the 30 years ago, again fair answer. He was indirectly saying that those were different people involved, so that's why he should be believed. I didn't say Jose couldn't take it.. I said I didn't like it. As well as my other comments... my opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Steff is right on. The quotes from the 2002 SI article were very damaging to Schilling's testimony on the panel. That was a genius way to end the panel around the time supper ended for most families in America. Which means it was brought to the attention of more sports-minded Americans than any other part. Mr Schilling, doesn't that contradict what you are saying now? He never answered that question. He seemed totally unprepared in his answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) I do really wish that Frank got to testify. I think he would have come off with PR coup sitting up there with all of the rest of the scumbags, liars, and evaders. With all of the bad press the big fella has had this would have been a nice reward for all of the years he stayed on the straight and narrow. A part of me is glad he didn't testify. We all know what Frank can do with impromtu comments into a live microphone. He said his piece, was commended by members of congress for his actions, and named co-chair of a Federal Advisory Committee...Thank you and good night folks! Leave them wanting more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) I didn't say Jose couldn't take it.. I said I didn't like it. As well as my other comments... my opinions. I gotcha. 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.