No Hall of Fame for Palmeiro
Freedom Fries
By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer
August 1, 2005
NEW YORK (AP) -- Rafael Palmeiro was suspended for violating Major
League Baseball's steroids policy Monday, nearly five months after
telling Congress that ``I have never used steroids. Period.''
Palmeiro two weeks ago collected his 3,000th hit, joining Hank Aaron,
Willie Mays and Eddie Murray as the only players with 3,000 hits and
500 homers.
Palmeiro, 40, is the seventh and highest-profile player to test
positive for steroids under the major league policy adopted earlier
this year.
In remarks prepared for a conference call Monday, Palmeiro said he had
accepted his punishment and could not explain how the steroids got
into his body.
``I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period,'' he
said. ``Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned
substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to
be suspended under the terms of the program.''
A grievance filed by the players' union against the suspension was
denied.
Appearing with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and other baseball stars
before a congressional committee on March 17, Palmeiro made an opening
statement in which he said: ``Let me start by telling you this: I have
never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more
clearly than that. Never.''
Palmeiro seemed in that appearance to be indignant over accusations
made by former slugger Jose Canseco, who cited Palmeiro as a steroid
user in his tell-all book. In an interview on the CBS television show
``60 Minutes,'' Canseco -- who also testified before Congress -- said
he injected the drug into Palmeiro.
harry lime
substance!
"Freedom Fries" <BushIs...@warcrimes.com> wrote in message
news:42ee5...@x-privat.org...
David the Nationals Fan
knowing it was banned? Or it was put in his water bottle by a gambler
when he was not looking? Or any one of a dozen other reasons. You
would still administer this "severe" penalty? When it comes out that
it was not steroids, will anyone restore his reputation?
Tom K
How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
That's what the labor agreement says. I don't know why people can't
get past this fact - if the agreement says "If you have X in your
system, you are banned", and the test shows you have X in your system,
that means you get suspended, no questions asked.
And a gambler slipping stuff into his water? You must also think space
aliens killed Laci Peterson?
Jim Tiberio
"Tom K" <mryc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122921033.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Be careful Tom or you'll have Tom Cruise knocking on your door.
Jon Enslin
news:1122920691.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
That is the fall back position for anyone who has tested positive. It is
simply a way to put enough doubt in the public's mind in order to save what
little reputation he has left.
When the NFL banned psuedophedrine, everyone said that there would be a
severe problem with positive tests because it is such a common medicine.
Well, that just doesn't happen. Why? Because no player now ingests a
medicine without consulting a training staff...no player allows a "gambler"
to grab hold of their water, etc. etc.
This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely to
be the truth.
Jon
GaryFL
There is nothing in the agreement that says Palmeiro can't say exactly
what substance failed him. The clause is for the protection of the
player and prohibits MLB from disclosing the banned substance.
Palmeiro can say whatever he wants. He's full of shit IMO among other
things.......
man_in...@yahoo.com
Bryan S. Slick
[1 Aug 2005 11:30:33 -0700]
:How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
:the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
:- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
That's an absurdly stupid position to take, imo.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it,
freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
David the Nationals Fan
that if the test is ultimately "if you have it in your system you are
banned no matter how it got in your system" that we aren't going to
start to see it happen due to outside influences. Its happened in the
horse racing industry, its happened in boxing, its naive to think that
it will not happen in Baseball. Its a real easy way to "nobble" the
other team. And, unlike, say slipping in a sleeping pill, its going
to be a lot harder to "assume" that it was done with intent to hurt the
team.
Any law or rule which deals in absolutes without discretion of any kind
is a stupid law or rule that will end up doing injustices. This rule
was forced on baseball by a legislature that doesn't want to spend its
time doing what it should be doing, and is, instead of looking real
problems, is focusing on bread and circuses.
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:52:37 -0500]
:This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
:the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely to
:be the truth.
Actually, no.. what it does is demand that at some point some
responsibility is taken by the idiots drafting the policies. What,
exactly, is performance-enhancing about a sinus medication?
Answer: nada.. but it's easier to do a blanket test and throw some
careers down the shitter in the name of the "integrity of the game" than
to take the time, energy, and (most importantly, to the ignorant
fucksticks who operate Major League Baseball) the expense to do a
detailed analysis, one supposed performance-enhancing drug at a time.
Goro
David the Nationals Fan wrote:
Ben Johnson said that someone put it in his water. (apparently, he
meant "Daily... under his direction.")
-goro-
Squad
news:MPG.1d5847af9...@news-40.giganews.com...
> [Jon Enslin som...@somewhere.net]
> [Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:52:37 -0500]
>
> :This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
> :the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely
> to
> :be the truth.
>
actually that's the next-to-the-last refuge
the last being to pull-out the race card and/or claim that the test sample
was tampered with...
Igneoused
They didn't?
rockp...@yahoo.com
> knowing it was banned?
Can you list the sinus medications which have ingredients that are on
baseball's banned substance list?
> Or it was put in his water bottle by a gambler
> when he was not looking?
What gambler has access to Rafi's water bottle? How do you suppose
anyone outside of the Orioles organization can get to Rafi's locker or
to the dugout to spike Rafi's drink?
> Or any one of a dozen other reasons. You
> would still administer this "severe" penalty?
The penalty is not severe enough.
> When it comes out that it was not steroids, will anyone restore his reputation?
When??? LOL. You are either a fanboy of the Orioles, a fanboy of
Palmeiro, or both.
Steroids or not (though most likely steroids), he was caught with a
banned substance. No amount of spinning or ridiculous conspiracy
theories about degenerate gamblers spiking his drink will change that.
Squad
news:1122927467....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>> Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
>> knowing it was banned?
>
> Can you list the sinus medications which have ingredients that are on
> baseball's banned substance list?
>
http://falsepositivedrugtest.com/
David the Nationals Fan
asked whether you would still administer the punishment if it was a
sinus medicine that he took after being told to take it by a Doctor, or
if it was administered to him without his knowledge by a gambler, or
any of a dozen other reasons. Your answer appears to be that you
would still administer a severe penalty.
I view the prohibited substance ban as something which needs to be
enforced based on intent. Others believe that it is an absolute ban
and should be enforced even if the "user" is blameless. You are not
going to convince me that an absolute ban makes any sense at all. I
suspect that I am not going to be able to convince you that an
"absolute ban" will not only not solve the problem, but in fact will
make it worse. I suspect that you would be very upset if everything in
life was enforced without looking at intent.
Edward M. Kennedy
> :This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
> :the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely to
> :be the truth.
>
> Actually, no.. what it does is demand that at some point some
> responsibility is taken by the idiots drafting the policies.
What he said. Even our asinine drug laws are implemented
by the courts in a saner fashion than this.
--Tedward
Lee Harris
its a good point. Imagine if the Yankees went to a restaurant in Boston and
the head chef spiked Giambi or Sheffields drinks with some dodgy compound
Jon Enslin
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5847af9...@news-40.giganews.com...
> [Jon Enslin som...@somewhere.net]
> [Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:52:37 -0500]
>
> :This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
> :the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely
> to
> :be the truth.
>
> Actually, no.. what it does is demand that at some point some
> responsibility is taken by the idiots drafting the policies. What,
> exactly, is performance-enhancing about a sinus medication?
>
> Answer: nada.. but it's easier to do a blanket test and throw some
> careers down the shitter in the name of the "integrity of the game" than
> to take the time, energy, and (most importantly, to the ignorant
> fucksticks who operate Major League Baseball) the expense to do a
> detailed analysis, one supposed performance-enhancing drug at a time.
Slick, if you don't take a zero-tolerance policy, a player and his lawyer
could *always* claim the sinus medication angle and file a lawsuit if MLB
finds otherwise.
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:51:13 -0500]
:
:"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy if the testing is applied fairly.
The blanket test they do now, with no reprieve (don't tell me an appeal
to the commissioner is a reprieve in this case.. it isn't) available and
no specificity in the testing.. that's nonsense.
Let's use this as an example. You have a player whose reputation is now
shot to shit, whose Hall of Fame entry may be fucked. Take him into the
MLB's testing lab or whatever.. and take a gallon of piss if need be..
but check substance-by-substance. The correct one can be matched. When
you've got it, then the commissioner determines if it was in fact
performance-enhancing or just boneheaded stupidity on the part of either
the player or the trainer, etc.
The players deserve such attention to detail. So do the fans.. most of
them, anyway.. those on the current witch-hunt are free to suck my ass.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
(while I shit)
Jon Enslin
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
I am at a loss trying to figure out how a blanket test in the first
paragraph is any different from the second. If they both show steroids in
the system, it's not as though they are labelled "good steroid" and "bad
steroid."
Jon
Dave Melvin
I agree, you should only get a speeding ticket if you "intended" to speed.
dam
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:00:21 -0500]
:> I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy if the testing is applied fairly.
:> The blanket test they do now, with no reprieve (don't tell me an appeal
:> to the commissioner is a reprieve in this case.. it isn't) available and
:> no specificity in the testing.. that's nonsense.
:>
:> Let's use this as an example. You have a player whose reputation is now
:> shot to shit, whose Hall of Fame entry may be fucked. Take him into the
:> MLB's testing lab or whatever.. and take a gallon of piss if need be..
:> but check substance-by-substance. The correct one can be matched. When
:> you've got it, then the commissioner determines if it was in fact
:> performance-enhancing or just boneheaded stupidity on the part of either
:> the player or the trainer, etc.
:
:I am at a loss trying to figure out how a blanket test in the first
:paragraph is any different from the second. If they both show steroids in
:the system, it's not as though they are labelled "good steroid" and "bad
:steroid."
According to the story, the test tests for about 500 substances.. if one
of them shows up, the test is positive, without very specific detail on
the substance that caused the flag.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it,
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:03:04 GMT]
:"David the Nationals Fan" <davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Hey to staying with the flow of traffic.
(pick a different analogy)
CaptMike
medals or were just disqualified because they take certain kinds of
medicines for a number of common diseases like asthma. I have heard
that some of the inhalers they used contain steroid-like properties. If
Palmiero is taking some medication... whether its his viagra or
something for his blood pressure or lungs... he should have his doc
thoroughly examine the product before he uses it.
Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW'S ONE & ONLY TRUE Pope
Seth Jackson
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree, but once the guy tests positive, the burden of proof shifts
to him. He can't just claim "Duh, I didn't know", and expect to be
excused.
lein
David the Nationals Fan wrote:
Sorry bud but it is the legistlature's business. You see, baseball has
this anti-trust excemption which makes it's oversight clearly with the
U.S. Congress. If baseball doesn't like it, it can play by the same
rules as every other corporation.
Trent Woodruff
>>[Tom K mryc...@yahoo.com]
>>How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
>>the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
>>- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
>That's an absurdly stupid position to take, imo.
It's not any different than OUR requirements as military members,
Bryan. We're responsible for making sure we don't ingest anything
contrary to requirements. It's on US. I see no reason why it
shouldn't also be on these players. Personal responsibility and all
that.
Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:49:05 GMT]
:>Bryan S. Slick was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
:>>[Tom K mryc...@yahoo.com]
:
:>>How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
:>>the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
:>>- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
:
:>That's an absurdly stupid position to take, imo.
:
:It's not any different than OUR requirements as military members,
:Bryan. We're responsible for making sure we don't ingest anything
:contrary to requirements. It's on US. I see no reason why it
:shouldn't also be on these players. Personal responsibility and all
:that.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
I have tested positive for cocaine in the past, Trent. Why? I was on
Tylenol/3, which will occasionally spark a false positive. When it came
up, I brought my prescription in, and I was covered.
Are soldiers allowed to be on codeine without a prescription? No. Are
they covered as long as they're on prescription? Yes. It's not a
precisely analagous situation.
Jon Enslin
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
But it is still a steroid right? I'm sure some are more effective than
others, but are any considered OK?
Jon
Jon Enslin
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
> [Trent Woodruff wood...@cableone.net]
> [Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:49:05 GMT]
>
> :>Bryan S. Slick was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
> :>>[Tom K mryc...@yahoo.com]
> :
> :>>How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
> :>>the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
> :>>- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
> :
> :>That's an absurdly stupid position to take, imo.
> :
> :It's not any different than OUR requirements as military members,
> :Bryan. We're responsible for making sure we don't ingest anything
> :contrary to requirements. It's on US. I see no reason why it
> :shouldn't also be on these players. Personal responsibility and all
> :that.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>
> I have tested positive for cocaine in the past, Trent. Why? I was on
> Tylenol/3, which will occasionally spark a false positive. When it came
> up, I brought my prescription in, and I was covered.
>
> Are soldiers allowed to be on codeine without a prescription? No. Are
> they covered as long as they're on prescription? Yes. It's not a
> precisely analagous situation.
In your semi-blind homerism you are digging yourself into an intellectual
hole. First of all, the steroid test was not a false positive - I don't
think I have seen anyone claim it was. I mean, this case has already gone
through the appeals process so it has been throroughly handled. (And don't
get me started about how this very well could mean that he knew about this
possible suspension when he got his 3,000th hit.)
Second, what if you didn't have a prescription for codeine and were at a
friend's house and came down with a real bad headache. What if he offered a
Tylenol, which you took, that actually was a Tylenol with codeine? Even if
you were completely unaware that it had codeine, isn't it your fault? How
would the military react?
My guess is that he took some kind of supplement that he was told didn't
have a steroid, or worse was told was a non-detectable steroid, and he was
caught. This is his fault. MLB shouldn't just turn around and say "well,
it was just an honest mistake" otherwise we'd have honest mistakes all of
the time.
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 20:13:20 -0500]
:> According to the story, the test tests for about 500 substances.. if one
:> of them shows up, the test is positive, without very specific detail on
:> the substance that caused the flag.
:
:But it is still a steroid right? I'm sure some are more effective than
:others, but are any considered OK?
Unless I'm mistaken, a ton of things show up that aren't steroids.
(ephedra, for example)
Bryan S. Slick
[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 20:22:55 -0500]
:Second, what if you didn't have a prescription for codeine and were at a
:friend's house and came down with a real bad headache. What if he offered a
:Tylenol, which you took, that actually was a Tylenol with codeine? Even if
:you were completely unaware that it had codeine, isn't it your fault? How
:would the military react?
I heard of a SSG who had a mickey slipped into his drink at a club get
off scot free on a coke rap. (The ex-girlfriend admitted it when she
realized they were going to shitcan his entire career, rather than just
punish him a bit.)
Also though, there was another one who vehemently denied ever touching
the stuff, who demanded a retest (which was negative).. still get put
out, busted down, etc.
Luck of the draw, really.
My integrity is beyond reproach, and I suspect my Commanding Officer
would back me up if I was getting screwed over. I doubt I'd ever see an
Article 32 hearing.
Jon Enslin
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
> [Jon Enslin som...@somewhere.net]
> [Mon, 1 Aug 2005 20:13:20 -0500]
>
> :> According to the story, the test tests for about 500 substances.. if
> one
> :> of them shows up, the test is positive, without very specific detail on
> :> the substance that caused the flag.
> :
> :But it is still a steroid right? I'm sure some are more effective than
> :others, but are any considered OK?
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, a ton of things show up that aren't steroids.
>
> (ephedra, for example)
But Bryan, it wasn't a false positive. No one is saying that. He basically
said so here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659
"Today I am telling the truth again that I did not do this intentionally or
knowingly."
He is not questioning the validity of the test. He is claiming that the
test is legit, but he didn't do it on purpose. Ignorance is no excuse. He
should get the incredibly lenient 10 game sentence that the current policy
calls for, and he should be thanking his lucky stars that the policy wasn't
more harsh.
Jon
Trent Woodruff
>>>>[Tom K mryc...@yahoo.com]
>>>>How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
>>>>the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
>>>>- if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
>>>That's an absurdly stupid position to take, imo.
>>It's not any different than OUR requirements as military members,
>>Bryan. We're responsible for making sure we don't ingest anything
>>contrary to requirements. It's on US. I see no reason why it
>>shouldn't also be on these players. Personal responsibility and all
>>that.
>Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
>I have tested positive for cocaine in the past, Trent. Why? I was on
>Tylenol/3, which will occasionally spark a false positive. When it came
>up, I brought my prescription in, and I was covered.
You're making my point. You were able to easily prove your innocence
due to the prescription.
>Are soldiers allowed to be on codeine without a prescription? No. Are
>they covered as long as they're on prescription? Yes. It's not a
>precisely analagous situation.
But it IS because as an athlete who knows he's going to be tested, it
is incumbent upon HIM to make sure he's getting prescriptions for
anything that might cause such a false positive. It's not like
they're unknowns.
D-word
> knowing it was banned?
That's asinine. Sinus medication does not contain anything that would
cause someone to fail a test for anabolic steroids. Get a clue.
Eric Ramon
Jon Enslin wrote:
> My guess is that he took some kind of supplement that he was told didn't
> have a steroid, or worse was told was a non-detectable steroid, and he was
> caught. This is his fault. MLB shouldn't just turn around and say "well,
> it was just an honest mistake" otherwise we'd have honest mistakes all of
> the time.
>
and in a totally "unrelated" coincidence of timing we have this today:
Bonds expects to miss rest of '05, report says
Star reportedly has not told Giants of decision to follow doctors'
advice
Dave Reid
news:4MAHe.945$Tt6...@fe04.lga:
>> He is not questioning the validity of the test. He is claiming that
> the test is legit, but he didn't do it on purpose. Ignorance is no
> excuse. He should get the incredibly lenient 10 game sentence that
> the current policy calls for, and he should be thanking his lucky
> stars that the policy wasn't more harsh.
He should be thankful he's not in International cycling or in the
Olympics, where he'd be banned for 2 years.
10 days? So Kenny Rogers got more for pushing a cameraman and being
a general variety dumbass then Raffy did for cheating.
dave
Dave Reid
news:42eedd19...@news.cableone.net:
> But it IS because as an athlete who knows he's going to be tested, it
> is incumbent upon HIM to make sure he's getting prescriptions for
> anything that might cause such a false positive. It's not like
> they're unknowns.
Exactly....if someone was paying me millions of $$$ a year to perform
a task, and passing a drug test was part of that, you better believe I'd
know the ingredients of everything I took. And if I had any questions, I'd
be right at my team doctor finding out.
dave
David Marc Nieporent
Apparently you're unaware that anabolic steroids are not the only banned
substances.
That having been said, apparently he did test positive for steroids.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
The Mousterpiece
Freedom Fries wrote:
> In remarks prepared for a conference call Monday, Palmeiro said he had
> accepted his punishment and could not explain how the steroids got
> into his body.
>
> ``I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period,'' he
> said. ``Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned
> substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to
> be suspended under the terms of the program.''
I love this magic bullet that he and Bonds are using. So when someone
gets pulled over for DUI, can they say they don't know how the alcohol
got there and the never intentionally got drunk and they'll be let go?
Damn, sports players are dumb.
FuqD...@yeah.net
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:20:04 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<BushIs...@warcrimes.com> wrote:
>You dopes need to stop assuming it was for steroids.
>
>
>By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer
>August 1, 2005
>
>NEW YORK (AP) -- Rafael Palmeiro was suspended for violating Major
>League Baseball's steroids policy Monday, nearly five months after
>telling Congress that ``I have never used steroids. Period.''
>
>Palmeiro two weeks ago collected his 3,000th hit, joining Hank Aaron,
>Willie Mays and Eddie Murray as the only players with 3,000 hits and
>500 homers.
>
>Palmeiro, 40, is the seventh and highest-profile player to test
>positive for steroids under the major league policy adopted earlier
>this year.
>
>In remarks prepared for a conference call Monday, Palmeiro said he had
>accepted his punishment and could not explain how the steroids got
>into his body.
>
>``I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period,'' he
>said. ``Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned
>substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to
>be suspended under the terms of the program.''
>
>A grievance filed by the players' union against the suspension was
>denied.
>
>Appearing with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and other baseball stars
>before a congressional committee on March 17, Palmeiro made an opening
>statement in which he said: ``Let me start by telling you this: I have
>never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more
>clearly than that. Never.''
>
>Palmeiro seemed in that appearance to be indignant over accusations
>made by former slugger Jose Canseco, who cited Palmeiro as a steroid
>user in his tell-all book. In an interview on the CBS television show
>``60 Minutes,'' Canseco -- who also testified before Congress -- said
>he injected the drug into Palmeiro.
>
Joe Blow
> <rockp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122927467....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>>
>>>Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
>>>knowing it was banned?
>>
>>Can you list the sinus medications which have ingredients that are on
>>baseball's banned substance list?
>>
>
>
>
> http://falsepositivedrugtest.com/
Yeah, well if what this site says is correct, that 33% of all drug tests
are false positives, then it follows that about 33% of all the
superstars in Major League Baseball should come up with a false positive
test. Yet Palmeiro is the only one so far.
JB
David Marc Nieporent
I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
positive, unless I missed a headline.
zappafan
I strongly disagree with your interpretation of his remarks. To say he
never knowingly or intentionally took steroids is NOT mutually exclusive
to a false positive. Nobody is saying it 'was' a false positive, but I
and many others will say it 'could' be a false positive.
Also, if 'excessive' testosterone would cause a positive, there are many
natural reasons to fail this test intermittently. So knowing which
steriod triggered the suspension is essential to learning where it may
have come from, and if a false positive is possible.
bc
Joe Blow
Gee, a discussion about steroids and Barry Bonds's name emerges. What a
shocker.
OJ didn't kill Nicole either. All the evidence was circumstantial.
JB
David Marc Nieporent
Joe Blow <joseph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, that's clever. Mind if I use that? Wait, slow down, I'm taking
notes.
If you don't have any evidence in support of an argument, simply
equate your argument to the case for O.J. Simpson's guilt.
Wow. I'll bet that can apply in lots of situations. This could come in
handy. Thanks.
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Jim Tiberio" <jimti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3l78rsF...@individual.net...
>
> "Tom K" <mryc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1122921033.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> > > Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
> > > when he was not looking? Or any one of a dozen other reasons. You
> > > would still administer this "severe" penalty? When it comes out
that
> > > it was not steroids, will anyone restore his reputation?
> >
> > the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
> > - if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
> > get past this fact - if the agreement says "If you have X in your
> > system, you are banned", and the test shows you have X in your system,
> > that means you get suspended, no questions asked.
> >
> > And a gambler slipping stuff into his water? You must also think space
> > aliens killed Laci Peterson?
>
>
Jim, Jim...you're being glib...
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Tom K" <mryc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122921033.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> > Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
> > knowing it was banned? Or it was put in his water bottle by a gambler
> > when he was not looking? Or any one of a dozen other reasons. You
> > would still administer this "severe" penalty? When it comes out that
> > it was not steroids, will anyone restore his reputation?
>
> How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
> the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
> - if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
> That's what the labor agreement says. I don't know why people can't
> get past this fact - if the agreement says "If you have X in your
> system, you are banned", and the test shows you have X in your system,
> that means you get suspended, no questions asked.
>
> And a gambler slipping stuff into his water? You must also think space
> aliens killed Laci Peterson?
>
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
> > Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
> > knowing it was banned?
>
> baseball's banned substance list?
>
> > when he was not looking?
>
Pete Rose?
Vinnie S.
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>> I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
>>> positive, unless I missed a headline.
>
>>Gee, a discussion about steroids and Barry Bonds's name emerges. What a
>>shocker.
>>
>>OJ didn't kill Nicole either. All the evidence was circumstantial.
>
>Hey, that's clever. Mind if I use that? Wait, slow down, I'm taking
>notes.
>
> If you don't have any evidence in support of an argument, simply
> equate your argument to the case for O.J. Simpson's guilt.
>
>Wow. I'll bet that can apply in lots of situations. This could come in
>handy. Thanks.
Yeah, Bonds turned in a "25 year old Babe Ruth", at 36 years of age. That
happens all the time.
Vinnie S.
20car
"Jon Enslin" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:GVzHe.114$qv2...@fe07.lga...
>
> In your semi-blind homerism you are digging yourself into an intellectual
> hole. First of all, the steroid test was not a false positive - I don't
> think I have seen anyone claim it was. I mean, this case has already gone
> through the appeals process so it has been throroughly handled. (And
> don't get me started about how this very well could mean that he knew
> about this possible suspension when he got his 3,000th hit.)
>
> Second, what if you didn't have a prescription for codeine and were at a
> friend's house and came down with a real bad headache. What if he offered
> a Tylenol, which you took, that actually was a Tylenol with codeine? Even
> if you were completely unaware that it had codeine, isn't it your fault?
> How would the military react?
>
> My guess is that he took some kind of supplement that he was told didn't
> have a steroid, or worse was told was a non-detectable steroid, and he was
> caught. This is his fault. MLB shouldn't just turn around and say "well,
> it was just an honest mistake" otherwise we'd have honest mistakes all of
> the time.
>
> Jon
needle marks to prove it.
20car
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
You'd still be processed for ADSEP, Brian....it's zero tolerance. The CO's
hands are tied in that matter.
GaryFL
wrote:
Why is there even a question about whether Bonds is cheater? He
testified that he used steroids. But that he didn't know what he was
taking. Where do you think Palmerio got the excuse? Do you think that
anyone who is stupid enough to be busted for cheating a few months
after testifying in front of congress that he didn't has even half a
brain?
David M. Nieporent
>>>>>I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
>>>>>positive, unless I missed a headline.
>>>>Gee, a discussion about steroids and Barry Bonds's name emerges. What a
>>>>shocker.
>>>>OJ didn't kill Nicole either. All the evidence was circumstantial.
>>>Hey, that's clever. Mind if I use that? Wait, slow down, I'm taking
>>>notes.
>>> If you don't have any evidence in support of an argument, simply
>>> equate your argument to the case for O.J. Simpson's guilt.
>>>Wow. I'll bet that can apply in lots of situations. This could come in
>>>handy. Thanks.
>>Yeah, Bonds turned in a "25 year old Babe Ruth", at 36 years of age. That
>>happens all the time.
> Why is there even a question about whether Bonds is cheater? He
> testified that he used steroids.
No, he didn't.
We don't know for a fact what he testified to, since grand jury testimony is
secret. But assuming that what was leaked to the newspapers was accurate,
he did *not*, at any time, say he used steroids. What he said was that he
used a cream. Many people leaped to the conclusion that this was a steroid
cream. But he never said that. In fact, he said that he believed it was
something else.
> But that he didn't know what he was
> taking. Where do you think Palmerio got the excuse? Do you think that
> anyone who is stupid enough to be busted for cheating a few months
> after testifying in front of congress that he didn't has even half a
> brain?
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
David M. Nieporent
No, as you sarcastically imply, it doesn't. In fact, turning into Babe Ruth
at any age doesn't happen. Does this mean that Ruth used steroids?
In fact, it didn't happen for any other player in the game -- even though we
believe numerous other people used steroids. If steroids caused Bonds to
turn into Ruth, why didn't it have such an effect on anybody else?
Edward M. Kennedy
> But it is still a steroid right? I'm sure some are more effective than
> others, but are any considered OK?
Cortisone is a steriod. It is not perfomance enhancing
unless you consider a healed injury performance enhancing.
It's all in the stupidity of the interpretation.
--Tedward
jen...@charter.net
C'mon...if he wanted to say "I think it is a false positive" he could
have just come out and said those basic words.
>
> Also, if 'excessive' testosterone would cause a positive, there are many
> natural reasons to fail this test intermittently. So knowing which
> steriod triggered the suspension is essential to learning where it may
> have come from, and if a false positive is possible.
Again, no one is claiming that.
Jon
Lance Freezeland
<som...@somewhere.net> gave us:
>> (ephedra, for example)
>http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659
But "steroid" and "performance enhancing steroid" aren't necessarily
the same thing. I had steroids prescribed to me a few years back for
an allergic asthma that I have in relation to cat hair dander. It
helped regulate my breathing, but it didn't make me hit a golf ball
any farther.
--
Lance
"I believe in the Church of Baseball" Annie Savoy
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Lance Freezeland
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> gave us:
As Chris Truby was to Albert Belle, we really need to develop a
similar player for Barry Bonds.
--
Lance
"Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit
him is a communist." -- Alvin Dark
lein
>
> :
> :"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
> :news:MPG.1d5847af9...@news-40.giganews.com...
> :> [Jon Enslin som...@somewhere.net]
> :> [Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:52:37 -0500]
> :>
> :> :This is basically the "I'm a moron" defense, and it is the last refuge of
> :> :the guilty because people like you refuse to accept what is 99.9% likely
> :> to
> :> :be the truth.
> :>
> :> Actually, no.. what it does is demand that at some point some
> :> responsibility is taken by the idiots drafting the policies. What,
> :> exactly, is performance-enhancing about a sinus medication?
> :>
> :> Answer: nada.. but it's easier to do a blanket test and throw some
> :> careers down the shitter in the name of the "integrity of the game" than
> :> to take the time, energy, and (most importantly, to the ignorant
> :> fucksticks who operate Major League Baseball) the expense to do a
> :> detailed analysis, one supposed performance-enhancing drug at a time.
> :
> :Slick, if you don't take a zero-tolerance policy, a player and his lawyer
> :could *always* claim the sinus medication angle and file a lawsuit if MLB
> :finds otherwise.
> :
> :Jon
>
> I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy if the testing is applied fairly.
> The blanket test they do now, with no reprieve (don't tell me an appeal
> to the commissioner is a reprieve in this case.. it isn't) available and
> no specificity in the testing.. that's nonsense.
>
> Let's use this as an example. You have a player whose reputation is now
> shot to shit, whose Hall of Fame entry may be fucked. Take him into the
> MLB's testing lab or whatever.. and take a gallon of piss if need be..
> but check substance-by-substance.
Okay, I'll bite, why should a future Hall of Famer be treated
differently than a 20 year old who just got called up from AAA?
Bryan S. Slick
[2 Aug 2005 09:30:28 -0700]
:> I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy if the testing is applied fairly.
:> The blanket test they do now, with no reprieve (don't tell me an appeal
:> to the commissioner is a reprieve in this case.. it isn't) available and
:> no specificity in the testing.. that's nonsense.
:>
:> Let's use this as an example. You have a player whose reputation is now
:> shot to shit, whose Hall of Fame entry may be fucked. Take him into the
:> MLB's testing lab or whatever.. and take a gallon of piss if need be..
:> but check substance-by-substance.
:Okay, I'll bite, why should a future Hall of Famer be treated
:differently than a 20 year old who just got called up from AAA?
I'm not saying that he should. I'm using today as an example of just
how wrong the punishment could be (assuming, in this instance, that
Palmeiro is wrongfully accused, which I doubt).
Any player who comes up positive should then be subject to the most
exacting tests available before they're tossed onto the fire by Emperor
Selig.
Goro
I believe that most of the professional (and Olympic) testing requires
multiple samples and that false positives must be validated by the
other samples.
-goro-
zappafan
you missed the point completely. I'm not 'claiming' anything in this
paragraph. Please re-read it. My point was, obviously, 'knowing which
steroid triggered the suspension is essential to learning where it may
have come from, and if a false positive is possible.'
bc
> Jon
>
Trent Woodruff
>>"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote in message
>>>Second, what if you didn't have a prescription for codeine and were at a
>>>friend's house and came down with a real bad headache. What if he
>>>offered a Tylenol, which you took, that actually was a Tylenol with
>>>codeine? Even if you were completely unaware that it had codeine,
>>>isn't it your fault? How would the military react?
>> I heard of a SSG who had a mickey slipped into his drink at a club get
>> off scot free on a coke rap. (The ex-girlfriend admitted it when she
>> realized they were going to shitcan his entire career, rather than just
>> punish him a bit.)
>> Also though, there was another one who vehemently denied ever touching
>> the stuff, who demanded a retest (which was negative).. still get put
>> out, busted down, etc.
>> Luck of the draw, really.
>> My integrity is beyond reproach, and I suspect my Commanding Officer
>> would back me up if I was getting screwed over. I doubt I'd ever see an
>> Article 32 hearing.
>You'd still be processed for ADSEP, Brian....it's zero tolerance. The CO's
>hands are tied in that matter.
Correct. In my experience as First Sergeant, it would absolutely
still go to court-martial. Almost certainly found not guilty.
Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
jen...@charter.net
I understand your point. The reason Raffy is saying "I never
intentionally used steroids," is because he doesn't want to eliminate
factors such as a false positive or excessive testosterone as a reason
that he tested positive.
I completely disagree however. If he wanted to say that, he should
have just said that. No one is saying that though, except for the
Raffy apologists. He isn't saying it...his agent isn't saying it...the
Orioles aren't saying it...nobody.
The reason he is saying what he is saying IMO is either because he took
*something* that he wasn't aware had a steroid, but it did, or because
he simply got caught and is trying to revive whatever reputation he
had.
Jon
Seth Jackson
>My guess is that he knowingly shot steroids into his ass and he's got the
>needle marks to prove it.
No, no! Someone left a syringe on the chair and he sat down not
knowing it was there. Not his fault!
Wisk
"Seth Jackson" <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
news:kbjve1pteft5qinbc...@4ax.com...
Wisk
10451
"Seth Jackson" wrote:
>
> No, no! Someone left a syringe on the chair and he sat down not knowing
> it was there. Not his fault!>
I do that all the time, and I absolutely HATE it when that happens.
David Hageman
> Tom K wrote:
> > David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> >
> >>Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
> >>when he was not looking? Or any one of a dozen other reasons. You
> >>would still administer this "severe" penalty? When it comes out that
> >>it was not steroids, will anyone restore his reputation?
> >
> >
> > How will we know it's sinus medication though? That's why it's up to
> > the PLAYERS to buy stuff that does not include ingredients on the list
> > - if you buy em and you test positive, so be it - you are guilty.
> > That's what the labor agreement says. I don't know why people can't
> > get past this fact - if the agreement says "If you have X in your
> > system, you are banned", and the test shows you have X in your system,
> > that means you get suspended, no questions asked.
> >
> > And a gambler slipping stuff into his water? You must also think space
> > aliens killed Laci Peterson?
> >
> medals or were just disqualified because they take certain kinds of
> medicines for a number of common diseases like asthma. I have heard
> that some of the inhalers they used contain steroid-like properties. If
> Palmiero is taking some medication... whether its his viagra or
> something for his blood pressure or lungs... he should have his doc
> thoroughly examine the product before he uses it.
Somebody more likely spiked his water.
Somebody that wanted him in this light.
Milestone season HOF career and now this? After that speech to the
Senate?
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
David H.
David Hageman
> > My integrity is beyond reproach, .....
But your language begs an argument. ;^)
David H.
David Hageman
> In article <1122952499.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
> positive, unless I missed a headline.
Now now, don't get all sensitive on us, David.
Put the race card away.
And anyway, Raffie may use it himself.
David H.
OTOH, he'd have a tough case, since the Hispanic has dominated major
league baseball.
Bryan S. Slick
[2 Aug 2005 15:52:27 -0700]
:> In article <1122952499.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Race card? Are you stupid? (Don't answer that, Hageman.)
Where did Nieporent write anything about race?
"the Hispanic" .. interesting .. didn't know that about you.
Charlotte Brister
Give us all a break and wake up. Putting something in his water. How
naive can you be?
nob...@junk.min.net
at 01:52 PM, "Jon Enslin" <som...@somewhere.net> said:
>That is the fall back position for anyone who has tested positive. It is
> simply a way to put enough doubt in the public's mind in order to save
>what little reputation he has left.
If he took a legal supplement that turned out to contain a steroid, or a
precursor that was metabolized into a steroid in his body, he should just
say what the supplement was, and not hide behind this confidentiality
agreement BS. Those agreements are to protect patients/clients from
doctors or lawyers releasing info without the person's permission - the
patient/client can tell anything he wishes to tell, and that's what
Palmeiro should do. "I drank/ate such and such, which I thought was
just a nutritional supplement, ..."
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.14
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hageman
> [David Hageman dhag...@hagemangroup.com]
> [2 Aug 2005 15:52:27 -0700]
>
> :> In article <1122952499.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> :
> :>
> :> I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
> :> positive, unless I missed a headline.
> :
> :
> :Now now, don't get all sensitive on us, David.
> :
> :Put the race card away.
> :
> :And anyway, Raffie may use it himself.
> :
> :David H.
> :
> :OTOH, he'd have a tough case, since the Hispanic has dominated major
> :league baseball.
>
> Race card? Are you stupid? (Don't answer that, Hageman.)
>
> Where did Nieporent write anything about race?
>
> "the Hispanic" .. interesting .. didn't know that about you.
Oh don't worry. We know David Nieporent and Mike Moon always ride
their stallions in here with bugles blaring whenever a player of color
is in the crosshairs.
He just rightfully wanted to keep Bonds out of this conversation about
Palmeiro ..and I called him on it.
As far as my use of " the Hispanic",
In context here we're talking about "The Hispanic major league
player"...so for being concise, I just used the two words.
If you get racism or racial slander out of that, then you're the one
projecting.
David H.
Goro
nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
> In <ObuHe.10$c4...@fe05.lga>, on 08/01/05
> at 01:52 PM, "Jon Enslin" <som...@somewhere.net> said:
>
> >That is the fall back position for anyone who has tested positive. It is
> > simply a way to put enough doubt in the public's mind in order to save
> >what little reputation he has left.
>
> If he took a legal supplement that turned out to contain a steroid, or a
> precursor that was metabolized into a steroid in his body, he should just
> say what the supplement was, and not hide behind this confidentiality
> agreement BS. Those agreements are to protect patients/clients from
> doctors or lawyers releasing info without the person's permission - the
> patient/client can tell anything he wishes to tell, and that's what
> Palmeiro should do. "I drank/ate such and such, which I thought was
> just a nutritional supplement, ..."
<rumor mode ON>
On espnradio, i heard a blurb that said that an "unnamed source" within
MLB has stated that the steroid that Palmeiro has tested positive for:
there is no way that Palmeiro could have NOT known he had it in his
system. The "read b/w the lines" interpretation given by espnradio
guys: It was a performance enhancing injected steroid.
So far, this blurb has been unsubstantiated so I'm waiting to hear more
about it, so take it for what it's worth...
<rumor mode OFF>
-goro-
GaryFL
In Lupica's column in today's NY Daily News he said all the info he
had so far was that it was a "severe" positive. It will come out soon
Especially since the lying sack of shit is trying to deny it. Of
course his good buddy the ex-owner of the Rangers (one of the most
steroid infested teams in history) says he believes him. I'm sure the
explanation is hiding right next to the WMD's in Iraq somewhere.
D-word
> In article <1122951281....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>
> >> Let's assume for a minute it was a sinus medicine that he took without
> >> knowing it was banned?
>
> >cause someone to fail a test for anabolic steroids. Get a clue.
>
> Apparently you're unaware that anabolic steroids are not the only banned
> substances.
>
> That having been said, apparently he did test positive for steroids.
No, the point is that he DID test postive for *anabolic* steroids, not
some other banned substance.
The other point being that nasal sprays commonly contain
"corticosteroids," which I believe is what "David the Nationals fan"
was referring to when he brought up nasal spray.
GLS
Take your "Hate Bush" crap somewhere that somebody gives a
Steinbrenner.
GaryFL
wrote:
Don't you have some leaks to go plug?
David Loewe, Jr.
<onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>[Jon Enslin som...@somewhere.net]
>[Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:00:21 -0500]
>
>:> I'm fine with a zero-tolerance policy if the testing is applied fairly.
>:> The blanket test they do now, with no reprieve (don't tell me an appeal
>:> to the commissioner is a reprieve in this case.. it isn't) available and
>:> no specificity in the testing.. that's nonsense.
>:>
>:> Let's use this as an example. You have a player whose reputation is now
>:> shot to shit, whose Hall of Fame entry may be fucked. Take him into the
>:> MLB's testing lab or whatever.. and take a gallon of piss if need be..
>:> but check substance-by-substance. The correct one can be matched. When
>:> you've got it, then the commissioner determines if it was in fact
>:> performance-enhancing or just boneheaded stupidity on the part of either
>:> the player or the trainer, etc.
>:
>:I am at a loss trying to figure out how a blanket test in the first
>:paragraph is any different from the second. If they both show steroids in
>:the system, it's not as though they are labelled "good steroid" and "bad
>:steroid."
>
>According to the story, the test tests for about 500 substances.. if one
>of them shows up, the test is positive, without very specific detail on
>the substance that caused the flag.
Hmmm....
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2123113
"Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for the potent anabolic steroid
stanozolol, the same substance Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson of Canada
took in 1988, The New York Times reported on its Web site Tuesday
night."
That's fairly "specific detail," don't ya think?
Here's the NY Times link for those who are registered (or want to use
bugmenot.com)...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/sports/baseball/03steroids.html
--
"So I voted for her. And now that my soul is gone, the echo is really weird
in here..."
Ben Ryan in <3a093...@bingnews.binghamton.edu> on voting for Hillary
GaryFL
But his testimony was compelling to the arbitrator.
David Loewe, Jr.
?
Where are you getting this?
Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:50:36 -0500]
:On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:10:54 -0400, Bryan S. Slick
Absolutely. I hadn't read that at the time I posted.
Jeez.
If Congress is bloodthirsty as far as baseball goes, and there's every
reason to believe they are, I wonder if Palmeiro might be in hotter
water than he thinks he is at this moment.
The season started out so well, too.. ah well.
Joe Blow
> In article <8hDHe.529$%w....@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> Joe Blow <joseph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>>
>>> "The Mousterpiece" <neoya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Freedom Fries wrote:
>
>
>>>>>In remarks prepared for a conference call Monday, Palmeiro said he had
>>>>>accepted his punishment and could not explain how the steroids got
>>>>>into his body.
>>>>>``I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period,'' he
>>>>>said. ``Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned
>>>>>substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to
>>>>>be suspended under the terms of the program.''
>
>
>>>>I love this magic bullet that he and Bonds are using. So when someone
>>>>gets pulled over for DUI, can they say they don't know how the alcohol
>>>>got there and the never intentionally got drunk and they'll be let go?
>>>>Damn, sports players are dumb.
>
>
>>>I don't understand how Bonds got into this discussion. Bonds didn't test
>>>positive, unless I missed a headline.
>
>
>>shocker.
>>
>>OJ didn't kill Nicole either. All the evidence was circumstantial.
>
>
> Hey, that's clever. Mind if I use that? Wait, slow down, I'm taking
> notes.
>
> If you don't have any evidence in support of an argument, simply
> equate your argument to the case for O.J. Simpson's guilt.
>
> Wow. I'll bet that can apply in lots of situations. This could come in
> handy. Thanks.
Uhhh...okay....wow, what you wrote was brilliant, so quoteworthy. May I
borrow it?
Duuhhhhh...you could sling that comeback at anything, no matter how
brilliant. It's a worthless comeback.
But all that aside, the issue here is what incredibly naive fools some
of you weenies are. I suppose you think that a naughty prankster
slipped STANOZOLOL into Palmerio's sinus medication, do you? If there's
a schmendrick out there who'd believe it, it'd have to be you.
Yeah, he took stanozolol accidentally. Riiiiight....
JB
David Marc Nieporent
I don't know why you "suppose" I think that. What does that have to do
with what I said? I didn't write something about Palmeiro at all. Are you
even following the thread? I wrote about Bonds.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
JustForFun
<lee.h...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>"David the Nationals Fan" <davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1122925989.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>I didn't say that it happened in THIS case, but it is naive to think
>> that if the test is ultimately "if you have it in your system you are
>> banned no matter how it got in your system" that we aren't going to
>> start to see it happen due to outside influences. Its happened in the
>> horse racing industry, its happened in boxing, its naive to think that
>> it will not happen in Baseball. Its a real easy way to "nobble" the
>> other team. And, unlike, say slipping in a sleeping pill, its going
>> to be a lot harder to "assume" that it was done with intent to hurt the
>> team.
>>
>> Any law or rule which deals in absolutes without discretion of any kind
>> is a stupid law or rule that will end up doing injustices. This rule
>> was forced on baseball by a legislature that doesn't want to spend its
>> time doing what it should be doing, and is, instead of looking real
>> problems, is focusing on bread and circuses.
>>
>
>its a good point. Imagine if the Yankees went to a restaurant in Boston and
>the head chef spiked Giambi or Sheffields drinks with some dodgy compound
Was that YOUR excuse last time you failed a drug test at work?
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"GaryFL" <xx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74d0f1190khm0v5tl...@4ax.com...
That's it - Rove gave him the stuff!
It's funny how they control everything, and they're still oh, so sensitive.
Joe Blow
>>But all that aside, the issue here is what incredibly naive fools some
>>of you weenies are. I suppose you think that a naughty prankster
>>slipped STANOZOLOL into Palmerio's sinus medication, do you? If there's
>>a schmendrick out there who'd believe it, it'd have to be you.
>
>
> I don't know why you "suppose" I think that. What does that have to do
> with what I said? I didn't write something about Palmeiro at all. Are you
> even following the thread? I wrote about Bonds.
The thread subject is titled "No Hall of Fame for Palmeiro," you idiot,
and it's obvious that your naive, foolish position is that Bonds,
Palmeiro, etc. haven't taken steroids because the hardcore proof you
demand isn't there.
JB
David M. Nieporent
The only thing that's obvious is that you neither understand usenet
conventions nor the english language. Thread discussions often drift
slightly (or even substantially) from the subject line on usenet, and I
didn't say anything about Palmeiro not having taken steroids.
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
Rafael Stanozolol
> asked whether you would still administer the punishment if it was a
> sinus medicine that he took after being told to take it by a Doctor, or
> if it was administered to him without his knowledge by a gambler, or
> any of a dozen other reasons. Your answer appears to be that you
> would still administer a severe penalty.
>
> I view the prohibited substance ban as something which needs to be
> enforced based on intent. Others believe that it is an absolute ban
> and should be enforced even if the "user" is blameless. You are not
> going to convince me that an absolute ban makes any sense at all. I
> suspect that I am not going to be able to convince you that an
> "absolute ban" will not only not solve the problem, but in fact will
> make it worse. I suspect that you would be very upset if everything in
> life was enforced without looking at intent.
Do you still think it was a sinus medication or diuretic, fanboy?
Report: Palmeiro tested positive for stanozolol
August 2, 2005
NEW YORK (AP) -- Rafael Palmeiro's positive steroid test was for
stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid that is not available in
dietary supplements, according to a newspaper report.
The New York Times, citing a person in baseball with direct knowledge
of the sport's drug-testing program, reported on its Web site Tuesday
that Palmeiro tested positive for the drug known by the brand name
Winstrol, most notably linked to the Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson of
Canada.
The person who said that Palmeiro tested positive for stanozolol did
not want to be identified because the testing policy prohibits anyone
in baseball from disclosing information about test results without
authorization, the Times said.
The Baltimore Orioles first baseman was suspended by Major League
Baseball for 10 days on Monday after testing positive for a
performance-enhancing drug. The highest profiled player to be punished
so far, Palmeiro testified before Congress in March that he ``never
used steroids.''
The test was taken some weeks after Palmeiro testified before Congress
in March, meaning he is probably not at risk for perjury, the Times
reported, citing a committee staff member who spoke to the newspaper
on condition of anonymity because official statements are supposed to
come from members of Congress.
Palmeiro didn't deny turning in a positive test, but was adamant it
was an accident.
Johnson was stripped of his 100-meter gold medal in 1988 after testing
positive for stanozolol.
Palmeiro was the seventh player to fall under baseball's new, tougher
steroids policy; Seattle Mariners right-hander Ryan Franklin became
the eighth when he was also suspended 10 days for a violation Tuesday.
Baseball does not release what type of drug a player has tested
positive for, and so far none of the eight have spoken openly about
details of their violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OOPS! I suppose some gambler could have stuck that needle under Rafi's
seat when he wasn't looking, right?
Joe F.
David M. Nieporent
> David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>>Read what I wrote. I didn't say that it had happened in this case, I
>>asked whether you would still administer the punishment if it was a
>>sinus medicine that he took after being told to take it by a Doctor, or
>>if it was administered to him without his knowledge by a gambler, or
>>any of a dozen other reasons. Your answer appears to be that you
>>would still administer a severe penalty.
>>
>>I view the prohibited substance ban as something which needs to be
>>enforced based on intent. Others believe that it is an absolute ban
>>and should be enforced even if the "user" is blameless. You are not
>>going to convince me that an absolute ban makes any sense at all. I
>>suspect that I am not going to be able to convince you that an
>>"absolute ban" will not only not solve the problem, but in fact will
>>make it worse. I suspect that you would be very upset if everything in
>>life was enforced without looking at intent.
> Do you still think it was a sinus medication or diuretic, fanboy?
Do you have any understanding of the meaning of the word "if," dumbass? He
told you, twice, that he didn't say it had happened in this case.
One despairs for the future of the country. I don't know if some people are
too stupid to understand that when one says, "If such and such is true, I
would excuse him" is not the same thing as saying "Such and such is true,
and I excuse him," or if those people are just so dishonest that they'll
pretend these are the same.
Edward M. Kennedy
> One despairs for the future of the country. I don't know if some people are
> too stupid to understand that when one says, "If such and such is true, I
> would excuse him" is not the same thing as saying "Such and such is true,
> and I excuse him," or if those people are just so dishonest that they'll
> pretend these are the same.
This is Usenet. Abuse is down the hall.
--Tedward
JustForFun
This thread is silly anyhow. Palmeiro was debatable as a HOF candidate
before the steroid thing. Now it's a no-brainer. He's out. Not
because he took steroids, but because taking them made him the biggest
hypocrite in the game after volunteering to lead that Senate
commishion thing then getting busted using just a few months later.
Integrity is a part of the HOF voting criteria and Raffy has none, at
this point.
Guys like Palmeiro and McGwire don't belong in the HOF, steroids or
not. McGwire was a great hitter for only a very short time. Palmeiro
was a good hitter for a very very long time, but never a dominant
player at any point of his career. With the inflation of numbers due
to a juiced ball, smaller ballparks, and pitching diluted by
expansion, neither 500HRs nor 3000 hits is all that impressive, beyond
the number of years he played to get there That he was juicing, makes
it even less impressive.. Guys who played in his era like Ken Griffey
Jr. and Frank Thomas will finish with fewer overall numbers, but
dominated the sport for a decade. They belong in the HOF.
In the previous era you had guys like Jim Rice who dominated for a
number of years, but didn't play for 22 years so he doesn't have the
gaudy career numbers. Rice belongs in the HOF, though. He was the best
of the best of his time.. Or guys like Harold Baines who DID play for
22 years every bit as productively as Raffy has, but didn't have the
same advantages. Baines playing the same time frame in the same parks
Raffy did would have resulted in nearly identical career numbers. Both
were very good hitters for alot of years but never dominant. Palmeiro
doesn't belong in the hall of fame any more than Harold Baines does.
(Someone should tell Palmeiro that at his age he wouldn't need viagra
if he wasn't taking the steriods to begin with)
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"JustForFun" <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3bg2f1t70n0qcrrdv...@4ax.com...
No, he doesn't belong in the HOF, precisely because he didn't dominate for
enough years, and in many of those years, he was overrated. He played in
Fenway Park, he didn't walk terribly much, and he grounded into a million
double plays a year.
Douglas
See if the company involved surprises you. It did me.
---------------
"THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA is often inconsistent in covering stories. They gave
us wall-to-wall coverage when George W. Bush's National Guard service came
under scrutiny, but suddenly made themselves scarce when over two hundred
Vietnam veterans pointed out hole after hole in John Kerry's service
narrative. When Rush Limbaugh ran into legal problems surrounding his
addiction to painkillers, we heard breathless updates on subpoenas and court
orders, but when Eason Jordan revealed his predilection to slandering the
U.S. military, again the press pulled a disappearing act.
Michael LeBoeuf once commented that the elements of the perfect fiction
would involve religion, royalty, sex, and mystery--and then boiled it down
to one sentence: "My G--," said the Queen, "I'm pregnant. I wonder who did
it?" Is there a grand-unified theory of media interest and if so, what
elements need to come together to make the perfect journalistic storm?
We often hear journalists claim that their mission consists of afflicting
the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. One crucial element must
therefore put powerful people under a spotlight. Some journalists say that
they fight for the little guy, the downtrodden, which means that the story
must include victims. Still others like investigative work, digging through
arcane paperwork and doubletalk to reveal misdeeds that otherwise would
never come to light, which means that a crime or at least unethical conduct
would help draw interest. And finally, big money always attracts a crowd and
helps audiences relate to the disgraceful actions unveiled by the reporter.
Thus, the perfect journalistic storm would arise when powerful people
victimize the poor and downtrodden, breaking laws or at least ethical
constructs, by taking money meant for their benefit. That sort of story will
get anyone's attention. All it takes is one reporter to tell the story, and
the rest of the media will jump all over it. Right?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/918vrben.asp
____________________________________