BuffettNews.com

aeroparrot wrote:

RAGTOP wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:One thing no one has mentioned is that Palmero COULD be arrested and tried for perjury to Congress for his testimony. He could be sent to prison for it.

never happen. They have no way of knowing if he was on roids when he made the statement. He could just say I started taking them after my testimony.

Or even say that he didn't know that the stuff he was taking included the banned substances.

A world class professional athlete who says he took something and didn't know what it was is full of s***. Almost all these guys have personal trainers, they're not about to put an unknown substance in their bodies.

tikitatas wrote:I just googled to see some of the before and after photos of this guy.
Can there BE a question???

Have you seen Sammy Sosa lately? The first time I saw the Orioles play this year I came to work the next day and asked the guy I share my office with "Who's the little guy who stole Sammy Sosa's uniform?"

LIPH wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:

RAGTOP wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:One thing no one has mentioned is that Palmero COULD be arrested and tried for perjury to Congress for his testimony. He could be sent to prison for it.

never happen. They have no way of knowing if he was on roids when he made the statement. He could just say I started taking them after my testimony.

Or even say that he didn't know that the stuff he was taking included the banned substances.

A world class professional athlete who says he took something and didn't know what it was is full of s***. Almost all these guys have personal trainers, they're not about to put an unknown substance in their bodies.

I'm with you on this. Self preservation is a strong instinct.

RAGTOP wrote:it's a shame that they will elect Palmerio, Sosa, Bonds etc into the Hall of Fame and yet Jim Rice will always be on the outside looking in

Ditto and add Don Mattingly to that list. Perrenial all-star who played in a rare time period where the Yankees where consistantly bad.

The way I see it is if you have a possibility of losing $168,000 over a ten game strecth you better damn well know what is going into your body.

jonesbeach10 wrote:

RAGTOP wrote:it's a shame that they will elect Palmerio, Sosa, Bonds etc into the Hall of Fame and yet Jim Rice will always be on the outside looking in

Ditto and add Don Mattingly to that list. Perrenial all-star who played in a rare time period where the Yankees where consistantly bad.

Plus if I remember correctly, he didn't speak much to the media too right?

LIPH wrote:

tikitatas wrote:I just googled to see some of the before and after photos of this guy.
Can there BE a question???

Have you seen Sammy Sosa lately? The first time I saw the Orioles play this year I came to work the next day and asked the guy I share my office with "Who's the little guy who stole Sammy Sosa's uniform?"

I HAVE. When we go to the Dominican every winter, I ask the guys there about the players and even they talk about the steroid use. Not many Dominican men have that huge muscle composition, Ortiz excepted.

jonesbeach10 wrote:

RAGTOP wrote:it's a shame that they will elect Palmerio, Sosa, Bonds etc into the Hall of Fame and yet Jim Rice will always be on the outside looking in

Ditto and add Don Mattingly to that list. Perrenial all-star who played in a rare time period where the Yankees where consistantly bad.

Mattingly's not even close to a Hall of Fame player. He had a 4 year strectch where he was one of the best players in the game but the rest of his career he was just another player. A lot of it was because of back problems but he finished his career with less than 250 home runs and probably 120 of them were in that 4 year stretch I mentioned. You want to talk about a guy who belongs in the Hall, how about Andre Dawson. Over 400 home runs, 300 stolen bases, almost 2800 hits, 1600 RBIs and one of the best defensive outfielders in the National League.

RAGTOP wrote:

tequilatom wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

aeroparrot wrote:

RAGTOP wrote: never happen. They have no way of knowing if he was on roids when he made the statement. He could just say I started taking them after my testimony.

Or even say that he didn't know that the stuff he was taking included the banned substances.

on the arrest, probably not. That is something he is going to have to wake up in the middle of the nights and soul-search over. As for the majority of the 90s stars who mysteriously put on 40 pounds of muscle as they got older (like Bonds), it's pretty simple: we can't prove you cheated, but we can treat you like cancer and excise you.

And before anyone says anything: if you can keep Rose out for his off-field transgressions, or let Cobb in with his on-field transgressions, you can certainly keep a bunch of guys with suspect numbers out to the point they have to go in on the legacy ballot. The person who raised the point about Canseco's book being false resulting in lawsuits for defamation is right. Asterisk the hell out of the record book if you want to keep them, but for me, the span from about 1988-2004, the majority of records don't count.

Now I have heard that Bonds is going to sit out the rest of the year. Coincindence? I think not.

i've been saying all year that he is trying to clean out his system.

I could be wrong but I believe he is still eligiable to be drug tested even though he is not playing.

True, since Bonds is still on the roster, he is open to drug testing. He has publicly said early on with the second knee set back that if his returning would not help the Giants make the playoffs, he would take the time for further rehab on his knee. He wants the opportunity to end his career as a Giant, and although he admits that Hank Aaron's record may now be out of reach, he would like to go after Babes record for himself and the Giants. I don't condone use of steroids or any other chemical performance enhancer, but to say that this is only a problem from 1988 on is silly. Performance enhancing drugs have been in proffessional sports since the 1920's and possibly even earlier. There are many old sporting page stories about atheletes "juicing" up from that time period. Let's face it folks, "if you build it, they will come" no longer what prices you charge, or what substances the players put in their bodies. As long as there is a market for it, and as long as the fans continue to line up for scalper tickets, this is with us to stay.

True, since Bonds is still on the roster, he is open to drug testing. He has publicly said early on with the second knee set back that if his returning would not help the Giants make the playoffs, he would take the time for further rehab on his knee. He wants the opportunity to end his career as a Giant, and although he admits that Hank Aaron's record may now be out of reach, he would like to go after Babes record for himself and the Giants. I don't condone use of steroids or any other chemical performance enhancer, but to say that this is only a problem from 1988 on is silly. Performance enhancing drugs have been in proffessional sports since the 1920's and possibly even earlier. There are many old sporting page stories about atheletes "juicing" up from that time period. Let's face it folks, "if you build it, they will come" no longer what prices you charge, or what substances the players put in their bodies. As long as there is a market for it, and as long as the fans continue to line up for scalper tickets, this is with us to stay.

I pulled 1988 out of the air arbitrarily. Frankly, any number on the single season HR record after Maris' 61 is suspect.

Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

UAHparrothead wrote:Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

another record that goes with Maris' 61 that until there is complete testing to ensure it's just training and skill, still stands even if Bonds does surpass it on paper.

RinglingRingling wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

another record that goes with Maris' 61 that until there is complete testing to ensure it's just training and skill, still stands even if Bonds does surpass it on paper.

We can't go back and test the atheletes of the past, Why should we hold the atheletes of the present to a different standard? Read my lasts posts before jumping on me about this one. I am just posing a question. There is plenty of evidence and speculation, that the players of Maris's, Aaron's, and Ruth's era were not all on the up and up either. Just because the technology to "prove" it exists for todays players, does not answer any concerns from the past. A record is a record until it is proven to have been gained by breaking the established rules. If Bonds should end up with the HR record, it will stand and be valid until proven otherwise. At this point, no one has proven that Bonds earned his HRs by breaking any of the established rules. Likewise, no one has proven that Maris, Ruth or Aaron broke any rules, but many speculated that they did.

FFishstick wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

another record that goes with Maris' 61 that until there is complete testing to ensure it's just training and skill, still stands even if Bonds does surpass it on paper.

We can't go back and test the atheletes of the past, Why should we hold the atheletes of the present to a different standard? Read my lasts posts before jumping on me about this one. I am just posing a question. There is plenty of evidence and speculation, that the players of Maris's, Aaron's, and Ruth's era were not all on the up and up either. Just because the technology to "prove" it exists for todays players, does not answer any concerns from the past. A record is a record until it is proven to have been gained by breaking the established rules. If Bonds should end up with the HR record, it will stand and be valid until proven otherwise. At this point, no one has proven that Bonds earned his HRs by breaking any of the established rules. Likewise, no one has proven that Maris, Ruth or Aaron broke any rules, but many speculated that they did.

so Maris and Aaron were the equivalent of 'roided up? I don't think so. Both of them were fairly normal-sized individuals who were not growing to monsterous proportions as they grew older.

And frankly, I don't care if you can "prove it", or if you want to weasel it out. I find it hard to believe that Raf wasn't using all along, and believe him to be doubly-stupid to continue using after he got up in front of Congress claiming to be clean.

It comes down to the appearance of impropriety. In my book, the records by the folks named in Canseco's book are suspect. That there was no attempt to fight back on the claims made there, means there has to be at least a grain of truth there, at least enough to throw out any judgement about libel. Thus, they are guilty of ethics violations.

LIPH wrote:You want to talk about a guy who belongs in the Hall, how about Andre Dawson. Over 400 home runs, 300 stolen bases, almost 2800 hits, 1600 RBIs and one of the best defensive outfielders in the National League.

Ron Santo needs to be added to that list as well

tequilatom wrote:

RAGTOP wrote:it's a shame that they will elect Palmerio, Sosa, Bonds etc into the Hall of Fame and yet Jim Rice will always be on the outside looking in

what hurt Rice was he wasn't media friendly. If you see him on NESN he comes accross as the nicest guy in the world.

Bonds isn't media friendly and there are others that are in. Rice should be there. I think next year he will. It's a very week class next year.

Yes next year is a weak class. No sure fire first ballot guys. This should let one or two deserving guys in. In 2007 it should be interesting. Ripken and Gwynn for sure. It will be the first year for Mark McGwire as well. We will be able to see if this whole thing blows over by then, or will it still be an issue?

Girl Question Alert....

How long does it take for steriods to get out of your system? Or be untraceable in your body?

ToplessRideFL wrote:Girl Question Alert....

How long does it take for steriods to get out of your system? Or be untraceable in your body?

well, there is the loss of hair, acne eruptions, and the testicle shrinkage issue, even after the system flushes most of it out..

RinglingRingling wrote:

FFishstick wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

another record that goes with Maris' 61 that until there is complete testing to ensure it's just training and skill, still stands even if Bonds does surpass it on paper.

We can't go back and test the atheletes of the past, Why should we hold the atheletes of the present to a different standard? Read my lasts posts before jumping on me about this one. I am just posing a question. There is plenty of evidence and speculation, that the players of Maris's, Aaron's, and Ruth's era were not all on the up and up either. Just because the technology to "prove" it exists for todays players, does not answer any concerns from the past. A record is a record until it is proven to have been gained by breaking the established rules. If Bonds should end up with the HR record, it will stand and be valid until proven otherwise. At this point, no one has proven that Bonds earned his HRs by breaking any of the established rules. Likewise, no one has proven that Maris, Ruth or Aaron broke any rules, but many speculated that they did.

so Maris and Aaron were the equivalent of 'roided up? I don't think so. Both of them were fairly normal-sized individuals who were not growing to monsterous proportions as they grew older.

And frankly, I don't care if you can "prove it", or if you want to weasel it out. I find it hard to believe that Raf wasn't using all along, and believe him to be doubly-stupid to continue using after he got up in front of Congress claiming to be clean.

It comes down to the appearance of impropriety. In my book, the records by the folks named in Canseco's book are suspect. That there was no attempt to fight back on the claims made there, means there has to be at least a grain of truth there, at least enough to throw out any judgement about libel. Thus, they are guilty of ethics violations.

Settle down tiger. Like Canseco is a reputable source... As for weaseling out.. I simply stated that back in the era of Maris, Ruth, and Aaron, there was plenty of speculation that they were illegally using performance enhancing substances. Blood doping was a big thing in the 50's and 60's. If you had read my previous posting, I never used the words steroids in direct conjuction with Ruth, Maris, and Aaron. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I simply posed a question as to holding todays atheletes to a different standard than those of the past. Conjecture, and Cansecos book are not evidence of any impropriety. How can their silence equal "guilty of ethics violations". Until proven, as is the case of Palmeiro, their records should and will stand. Bonds included.

FFishstick wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

FFishstick wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:Barry Bonds could hit 1,000 HRs but I my view and in the view of many other Hammerin' Hank will still be the Home Run King.

another record that goes with Maris' 61 that until there is complete testing to ensure it's just training and skill, still stands even if Bonds does surpass it on paper.

We can't go back and test the atheletes of the past, Why should we hold the atheletes of the present to a different standard? Read my lasts posts before jumping on me about this one. I am just posing a question. There is plenty of evidence and speculation, that the players of Maris's, Aaron's, and Ruth's era were not all on the up and up either. Just because the technology to "prove" it exists for todays players, does not answer any concerns from the past. A record is a record until it is proven to have been gained by breaking the established rules. If Bonds should end up with the HR record, it will stand and be valid until proven otherwise. At this point, no one has proven that Bonds earned his HRs by breaking any of the established rules. Likewise, no one has proven that Maris, Ruth or Aaron broke any rules, but many speculated that they did.

so Maris and Aaron were the equivalent of 'roided up? I don't think so. Both of them were fairly normal-sized individuals who were not growing to monsterous proportions as they grew older.

And frankly, I don't care if you can "prove it", or if you want to weasel it out. I find it hard to believe that Raf wasn't using all along, and believe him to be doubly-stupid to continue using after he got up in front of Congress claiming to be clean.

It comes down to the appearance of impropriety. In my book, the records by the folks named in Canseco's book are suspect. That there was no attempt to fight back on the claims made there, means there has to be at least a grain of truth there, at least enough to throw out any judgement about libel. Thus, they are guilty of ethics violations.

Settle down tiger. Like Canseco is a reputable source... As for weaseling out.. I simply stated that back in the era of Maris, Ruth, and Aaron, there was plenty of speculation that they were illegally using performance enhancing substances. Blood doping was a big thing in the 50's and 60's. If you had read my previous posting, I never used the words steroids in direct conjuction with Ruth, Maris, and Aaron. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. I simply posed a question as to holding todays atheletes to a different standard than those of the past. Conjecture, and Cansecos book are not evidence of any impropriety. How can their silence equal "guilty of ethics violations". Until proven, as is the case of Palmeiro, their records should and will stand. Bonds included.

and if you had read mine instead of flapping your fingers between classes, you would have seen the word "equivalent of"...

And yes, the book is. Silence? no. Weaseling out from under on the questions, yes. A simple yes or no answer, "Did you, during your career, use any substances that are or were considered 'performance-enhancing'?" Until they can answer that with a truthful no, their records don't count.