Mitchell Report?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both.

The comparison is that McCarthy named names of people that were not guilty of what they were accused of. And when those did not cooperate with the McCarthy investigation (which many choose not to answer questions) they were accused of being communist even if the evidence was not complete or the people were not convicted of anything. Of course it is a little different because one was a government action and another is a sports league or organizational report. The result is possibly the same. You have attached people’s names that are seen as guilty even if they did not give information. And folks like you are accusing those on the list as having done something wrong because they did not “defend themselves” by talking to the Mitchell people. This report has ruined the reputation of people based on a lot of hearsay and innuendo. Forgive me if I want more than a conversation to implicate someone of a wrong act. I guess anytime an official has a conversation with someone about what they feel, someone can accuse them of cheating or doing other things just based on a conversation. That is the only comparison I was making and if that is hard to understand then I really do not know what to tell you. This is why it is called a comparison, I did not say these two things were exactly and 100% the same.

Peace

[GarthB]

"Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both."

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The comparison is that McCarthy named names of people that were not guilty of what they were accused of. And when those did not cooperate with the McCarthy investigation (which many choose not to answer questions) they were accused of being communist even if the evidence was not complete or the people were not convicted of anything. Of course it is a little different because one was a government action and another is a sports league or organizational report. The result is possibly the same. You have attached people’s names that are seen as guilty even if they did not give information. And folks like you are accusing those on the list as having done something wrong because they did not “defend themselves” by talking to the Mitchell people. This report has ruined the reputation of people based on a lot of hearsay and innuendo. Forgive me if I want more than a conversation to implicate someone of a wrong act. I guess anytime an official has a conversation with someone about what they feel, someone can accuse them of cheating or doing other things just based on a conversation. That is the only comparison I was making and if that is hard to understand then I really do not know what to tell you. This is why it is called a comparison, I did not say these two things were exactly and 100% the same.

Peace

I rest my case.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Smoking dope and snorting cocaine do not enhance athletic performance. Players took speed to alleviate the effects of the hangover from drinking and chasing women and stumbling into the hotel after the strip clubs closed at 4:00 AM.

I don't do drugs. And I don't smoke. I don't have to smoke to know it's cancer causing etc. etc. etc.

Since you mentioned it, there is conflicting evidence that steroids have such an adverse affect as people have tried to make it. There is a significant part of the medical community that does not see steroids used under a doctor's observation that these drugs have many benefits. And before you say, "How can you say that?" Many drugs in this country are prescribed, but when people take doses above and beyond their intended use, they are abusing that drug and can create other symptoms they would not have had if they did not take the drug at all. I was prescribed Viacotin after a car accident; I did not take it after its intended use. But Farve from the Packers was an addict.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

"Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both."

I rest my case.

Once again you cannot accept that someone on this board does not agree with your position. I can decide for myself what is credible and what is not.

And as it relates to this issue as compared to the Vick issue or these other things you are debating with SDS. I could give a damn about what you think is a cheater if there were no rules to make it illegal at the time. You can only cheat when you are violating a current rule. You cannot cheat after the fact when you have decided something is wrong. It would be like me penalizing a team for a rule that is not in the rulebook yet, but later because illegal. I do not care about what Petrino did because he did not do it to me. I do not play on the Falcons and that is between the Falcons and Petrino and Arkansas. If the Falcons are so hurt by this, why not sue the man for violating a contract? I also do not feel that dog fighting is that big of a deal. I live in the Midwest where hunting is a major past time. Fellow classmates when I was in HS could get out of school justifiable by going hunting. You would have thought the man killed a human being rather than an animal that we kill all the time because we do not want to take care of them. I can look at each issue and form my own opinion on these things.


Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Once again you cannot accept that someone on this board does not agree with your position. I can decide for myself what is credible and what is not.

Hellsbells, Jeff. There you go again. I certainly can do accept that people don't agree with me...happens all the time.

I can also recognize when your posts indicate you haven't a clue about what McCarthy was about. Perhaps the blame lies with the Chicago public school system.

As for your final, (one can only hope) point: I agree that you certainly have shown that you can decide what is credible "for yourself." No argument about that.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Since you mentioned it, there is conflicting evidence that steroids have such an adverse affect as people have tried to make it. There is a significant part of the medical community that does not see steroids used under a doctor's observation that these drugs have many benefits. And before you say, "How can you say that?" Many drugs in this country are prescribed, but when people take doses above and beyond their intended use, they are abusing that drug and can create other symptoms they would not have had if they did not take the drug at all. I was prescribed Viacotin after a car accident; I did not take it after its intended use. But Farve from the Packers was an addict.

Peace

I know that people take Steroids for various medical conditions.

[GarthB]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7569266?MSNHPHMA

Imagine that.

[ozzy6900]

One of the problems with this whole report is what do we do with?

Many of the names on the list are only known to avid baseball fanatics, not fans. Just taking a shot in the butt will not make you a better hitter. You need the talent and the eye, the drug will not give you that. To throw a splitter requires dexterity of the hand and control of the ball. The drug give you none of that, only hard work and talent.

The real problem is that it is not the drug that makes the player, the drug allows the player to work harder. Hard work makes the player better. It's a catch 22.

So if we strip Clemens (for example) of his awards, do we negate all the pitches? This will raise all the batting averages for the batters that he faced. But what if they also took steroids?

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate the use of steroids unless directed by a doctor for a medical problem. But in reality, this whole report is a farce. The "accused" cannot defend themselves nor can they challenge their "accuser". I tend to agree with the thinking of Rush Limbaugh on this in that Baseball cannot and will not strip any awards. What's done is done. The future is what has to be changed.

Just my opinion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to repeat:

I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

Clear yet?

No?

Okay, who would you choose for a partner in a new business enterprise in which you have sunk your enitre fortune and bet your future?

A. Someone who would cheat you.
B. Someone who would leave you when times got tough.
C. Someone who would kill your dog for sport.

If you wrote in "none of the above", you're starting to get it.

Apparently I was not clear enough with you. Are you trying intentionally to miss my point?

If you HAD TO CHOOSE one of the three. No "none of the above" option. You had to choose between a cheater, a quitter, or a dog murderer, which would you choose? I thought that was pretty simple.

Of course I don't want the cheater. But I'm not giving choices here in this HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.

You are way too freakin' literal. Jeez, try to make an analogy. Jesus himself would have been frustrated with you when trying to tell a parable.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

One of the problems with this whole report is what do we do with?

Many of the names on the list are only known to avid baseball fanatics, not fans. Just taking a shot in the butt will not make you a better hitter. You need the talent and the eye, the drug will not give you that. To throw a splitter requires dexterity of the hand and control of the ball. The drug give you none of that, only hard work and talent.

The real problem is that it is not the drug that makes the player, the drug allows the player to work harder. Hard work makes the player better. It's a catch 22.

So if we strip Clemens (for example) of his awards, do we negate all the pitches? This will raise all the batting averages for the batters that he faced. But what if they also took steroids?

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate the use of steroids unless directed by a doctor for a medical problem. But in reality, this whole report is a farce. The "accused" cannot defend themselves nor can they challenge their "accuser". I tend to agree with the thinking of Rush Limbaugh on this in that Baseball cannot and will not strip any awards. What's done is done. The future is what has to be changed.

Just my opinion.

I agree with most of what you have here, Ozzy. Performance enhancing drugs do just that, they enhance performance. Some of those at the lower levels of performance, took them to enhance their performance to just stay in the game, while others at the upper levels used them to get just a bit better.

I disagree, however, that the "accused" cannot defend themselves. They were given, and will again be given that opportunity if Selig decides to ignore Mitchell and take action.

The Mitchell report, despite the handwringing and illogical charges of McCarthyism, did not convict anyone. It was similar to an indictment, many of which are handed down daily, and which contain the names of and outline the evidence against the accused. There is nothing sinister or unAmerican about the process so far. It is quite normal.

What will happen from this point? God only knows. Selig has been a weak sister of a Commissioner in the past and just might try to make himself appear tough by taking some kind of action. I'm with Mitchell: get our heads our of the sand, stop the silly denial, turthfully acknowledge where we are, how we got here and agree on a procedure to begin getting everyone clean.

The record of the Steroid Era, with or without an asterisk, will always be a little tainted. We'll learn to live with it, and, hopefully, move on.

P.S.

Dear Roger:

"And the truth shall set you free."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I also do not feel that dog fighting is that big of a deal. I live in the Midwest where hunting is a major past time. Fellow classmates when I was in HS could get out of school justifiable by going hunting. You would have thought the man killed a human being rather than an animal that we kill all the time because we do not want to take care of them.

Killing dogs for sport and hunting wild animals are like comparing apples and automobiles. They are not even remotely similar.

Dogs: Domesticated animals, family pets, man's best friend, etc. Not meant to be killed for not performing up to dog fighting standards.

Hunted animals: Wild animals, not normally associated as pets, license required to hunt them, hunted for sport for centuries, used as food to feed the hunters' family (except trophy hunting, which is just wrong).

If what Vick did was not wrong, why are there laws against it and why is everyone sickened by it? We don't prosecute hunters because they perform a service by thinning out the overpopulated herd. Killing dogs is just cruel.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Apparently I was not clear enough with you. Are you trying intentionally to miss my point?

Oh, as ridiculous as it was, I got it. Did you miss mine? I don't participate in silly hypothetical games. Reminds me of the old, "your mother, your wife and your son are drowning....which one do you save?" exercise. As soon as someone in enough of an idiot to pick one, they're accused of killing the other two. Dumb.

Let's debat on a higher level, Steve.

You are way too freakin' literal. Jeez, try to make an analogy. Jesus himself would have been frustrated with you when trying to tell a parable.

No. Jesus never tried to force anyone to do or say something stupid by presenting only ridiculous options to a situation. He recognized and taught that there is always a correct and viable decision available.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If what Vick did was not wrong, why are there laws against it and why is everyone sickened by it? We don't prosecute hunters because they perform a service by thinning out the overpopulated herd. Killing dogs is just cruel.

I loved his defense that it was a "cultural thing." I'm still trying to figure out to which culture he was referring.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

One of the problems with this whole report is what do we do with?

Reputations of the East German women be damned. Not one athlete created the products they stuck in their butt. You had to be blind not to know that steroids were being used in every major professional sports as early as 1985. The only thing good to come about the whole Jason Giambi fiasco was the destruction of the long established steroid pipeline within MLB.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I loved his defense that it was a "cultural thing." I'm still trying to figure out to which culture he was referring.

Must be SAUmp's culture. I think he has consumed too many dog tacos.