Roger before Congress

[GarthB]

My favorite part was Roger listing his flaws as "caring too much, giving too much and being too nice."

If his attorney scripted that, he should be fired.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem with this it is not about CSI and whether the DNA was put together or accurate. There are evidentiary rules that must be followed. Holding someone's DNA in the basement is not credible evidentiary procedures. I doubt a judge is going to accept evidence like this and later have it overturned by a higher court because they did not follow the proper procedures. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial? The issues in that case were not just about whether it was his blood or not, it was when it was discovered and the issues of chain of custody. I think you have been watching too much TV if you think that flies in the real world.

You conveniently neglect to address the fact that there are no criminal charges here for which the gauze, etc., are relevant. They are only relevant as a matter of witness credibility. "Chain of custody" blah, blah does not matter. Do the artifacts back up McNamee's story or not?

You cannot have it both ways without someone pulling your card. The case that many people made in the media was the actions of how Bonds defended himself. When another person takes another route, you cannot cry foul claim "they must be guilty" if you do not have any more evidence than you had before. And honestly, this is why baseball is inept in so many ways. MLB has allowed the past of their game to be tarnished over speculation and innuendo. And honestly I have yet to see the usage of steroids prove someone was a better player. Clemens during this period his velocity did not go up, he did not change drastically in size (which is suppose to be some "real evidence") and he did not start winning games (which pitchers do not have all the control over) and he did not start pitching more innings. So if Clemens used, a lot of holes in the argument that was used against Bonds are present.

Peace

Hello??? Where is it written that an accused strategy for dealing with the accusation has any bearing on guilt or innocence? Bonds never talked with the press before OR after the accusation. Clemens is a publicity seeker and privilege seeker and professional intimidator who can't stand to have his ego attacked. Hence different reactions.

And, again, I can have it both ways on this since it has nothing to do with whether or no they juiced. The evidence is very strong that both did. Different kinds of evidence for both, but both are cooked. And, rightly so.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have it both ways without someone pulling your card. The case that many people made in the media was the actions of how Bonds defended himself. When another person takes another route, you cannot cry foul claim "they must be guilty" if you do not have any more evidence than you had before.

Sure you can. This is the court of public opinion not state or federal criminal court.
The media and public can have it as many ways as they want
The 'evidence' thus far presented to the public has undeniably convicted ol Roger and Barry as well as OJ

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And honestly I have yet to see the usage of steroids prove someone was a better player.

It doesn't improve their natural talent, it just makes them stronger.
A player not on the juice who hits 30 hr and 35 warning track outs in a year goes on the juice and now hits 38 hrs, 5 doubles off the wall and 22 warning track outs has just become a 'better player' by virtue of added strength. His ability to identify pitches, anticipate how he will be pitched, hand eye coordination and swing mechanics, all necessary talents to play in MLB, has not been affected but his added strength and increased durability makes a big difference.
If you don't see this you need to open your eyes.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Clemens during this period his velocity did not go up, he did not change drastically in size (which is suppose to be some "real evidence") and he did not start winning games (which pitchers do not have all the control over) and he did not start pitching more innings. So if Clemens used, a lot of holes in the argument that was used against Bonds are present.

Peace

How old is Clemens? 42 I think.
How many 42 year old pitchers not on the juice are still in the game?
Not many
Maybe because:
Most 42 year old power pitchers have lost significant speed, subject to arm problems, pitch many less innings and don't have near as good a winning % as they did in their prime.

The fact that Roger has stayed consistent in these areas despite his age is just one more reason to believe he's guilty

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Sure you can. This is the court of public opinion not state or federal criminal court.
The media and public can have it as many ways as they want
The 'evidence' thus far presented to the public has undeniably convicted ol Roger and Barry as well as OJ

And folks like me can call you on that BS. Because that is all it is, BS.

Originally Posted by CO ump

It doesn't improve their natural talent, it just makes them stronger.
A player not on the juice who hits 30 hr and 35 warning track outs in a year goes on the juice and now hits 38 hrs, 5 doubles off the wall and 22 warning track outs has just become a 'better player' by virtue of added strength. His ability to identify pitches, anticipate how he will be pitched, hand eye coordination and swing mechanics, all necessary talents to play in MLB, has not been affected but his added strength and increased durability makes a big difference.
If you don't see this you need to open your eyes.

Do you have any studies that prove that? Because I will keep saying this, Benito Santiago was using steroids and failed a drug test. If you look at his stats throughout his career, he probably never hit more than 20 HRs during any year. When he left MLB, he barely hit 10 home runs. And that is just one example. Maybe you need to look at the list of players that actually tested positive for steroids and see how minimal their numbers were.

Originally Posted by CO ump

How old is Clemens? 42 I think.
How many 42 year old pitchers not on the juice are still in the game?
Not many
Maybe because:
Most 42 year old power pitchers have lost significant speed, subject to arm problems, pitch many less innings and don't have near as good a winning % as they did in their prime.

The fact that Roger has stayed consistent in these areas despite his age is just one more reason to believe he's guilty

Have you ever heard of Steve Carlton and Nolan Ryan? Ryan pitched his last no-hitter in his 40s. And I guess you have never heard of Randy Johnson or even Curt Schilling. Both pitchers are in their 40s and had success even in their early 40s. Also Clemens had health problems this year and did not start every time he had the ball. Clemens also the last two seasons did not pitch in spring training nor did he pitch a full season the last two years as well. Also Clemens' velocity has gone down for several years. The thing that made him effective is the fact he would pitch inside and developed another pitch he did not have in his early years. Not much different than Greg Maddox who also is in his 40s and knows where to put the ball and is relatively effective despite losing movement and velocity off his pitches.

My point is that you have to do better than read what the media tells you. I have no idea if Clemens used, but there are people in recent history that we can point towards and see similar success if you know your history.

Someone always told me, in order to know your history; you must know your past. If you knew baseball history, you would know that there are similar players with similar success as Clemens. And you would also know that there are many more examples of players that tested positive, that were journey men at best in baseball and were not even close to breaking records. And everything from medical technology has helped prolong the careers of many players during the current times. Just look at someone that would have had knee surgery in the 60s and how their career would be almost over, to now when someone has major knee surgery, they might be back in a few months to play again.


Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you would also know that there are many more examples of players that tested positive, that were journey men at best in baseball and were not even close to breaking records.

Jeff:

You need to do your homework on steriods an HGH. Neither will turn a journeyman into a superstar. They build on what talent one has, improving it a providing an "edge" for that ability level. Several "journeymen" who tested positive credit the drugs for allowing them to have the career they had. Without that edge, they believe they wouldn't have had a career at all.

The benefit from the illegal substances differed greatly with those who took them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Jeff:

You need to do your homework on steriods an HGH. Neither will turn a journeyman into a superstar. They build on what talent one has, improving it a providing an "edge" for that ability level. Several "journeymen" who tested positive credit the drugs for allowing them to have the career they had. Without that edge, they believe they wouldn't have had a career at all.

The benefit from the illegal substances differed greatly with those who took them.

Have you ever heard of the placebo affect?

People take all kinds of things that have no benefit, but they believe it does give them something so they continue to take it. I went to my Orthopedic Doctor after tearing my hamstring during the football season. I asked the doctor about taking Icy Hot and other muscle stimulation creams and medicines and he told me flat out they have little or no benefit to make you heal an injury. But people take them and if it makes them feel it works, it cannot do any harm. But there was no medical backing to prove it did anything more than just plain rest or inactivity. So because someone claims they were helped, does not mean they were medically helped. And studies of drugs often give people things that are not the drug to prove the real affects of drugs rather than just what someone thinks. People who take many drugs think they help, that is why they take them.

Peace

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by CO ump

It doesn't improve their natural talent, it just makes them stronger.
A player not on the juice who hits 30 hr and 35 warning track outs in a year goes on the juice and now hits 38 hrs, 5 doubles off the wall and 22 warning track outs has just become a 'better player' by virtue of added strength. His ability to identify pitches, anticipate how he will be pitched, hand eye coordination and swing mechanics, all necessary talents to play in MLB, has not been affected but his added strength and increased durability makes a big difference..

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And folks like me can call you on that BS. Because that is all it is, BS.

We will deal specifically with "folks like you" in a minute below.

Do you have any studies that prove that?

Most certainly but let's clear your qualifications, you understand, "folks like you" structured, non philosophical thinkers like you would demand nothing less.;

What is your academic, scientific and personal experience in clinical, human study of sports performance? A Ph.D. in at least pharmacology, biokinesiology or, at the least, human physiology would be a minimum educational requirement. We will pass on the intimacy of your athletic performance training credentials. I'm in a good mood.

How many citations have you studied, with whom did you pass/fail your examination of these citations? What is your relevant background in the determination of qualifying scientific studies? How many pharmacologically enhanced athletes have you personally trained (or observed their training, with records and the determination of those clinical relevancy of those records)? "Folks like you" would assuredly have these available. If not, folks like me can call you on that BS. Because without a good chunk of the qualifications above, that is all your post is, BS.

Lessee, 24 hours, folks like me will give folks like you 24 hours to come up with your answers. Fair enough?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Have you ever heard of the placebo affect?

People take all kinds of things that have no benefit, but they believe it does give them something so they continue to take it. I went to my Orthopedic Doctor after tearing my hamstring during the football season. I asked the doctor about taking Icy Hot and other muscle stimulation creams and medicines and he told me flat out they have little or no benefit to make you heal an injury. But people take them and if it makes them feel it works, it cannot do any harm. But there was no medical backing to prove it did anything more than just plain rest or inactivity. So because someone claims they were helped, does not mean they were medically helped. And studies of drugs often give people things that are not the drug to prove the real affects of drugs rather than just what someone thinks. People who take many drugs think they help, that is why they take them.

Peace

(Sigh)

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Have you ever heard of the placebo affect?

People take all kinds of things that have no benefit, but they believe it does give them something so they continue to take it. I went to my Orthopedic Doctor after tearing my hamstring during the football season. I asked the doctor about taking Icy Hot and other muscle stimulation creams and medicines and he told me flat out they have little or no benefit to make you heal an injury. But people take them and if it makes them feel it works, it cannot do any harm. But there was no medical backing to prove it did anything more than just plain rest or inactivity. So because someone claims they were helped, does not mean they were medically helped. And studies of drugs often give people things that are not the drug to prove the real affects of drugs rather than just what someone thinks. People who take many drugs think they help, that is why they take them.

Peace

You're right J.
Taking steroids coupled with an aggressive workout program does not increase muscle beyond the bodies natural ability.

Smokin dope doesn't give you a high.
A double expresso doesn't get you wired
Taking Vicadin doesn't kill the pain

It's all placebo

[David B]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And folks like me can call you on that BS. Because that is all it is, BS.



Do you have any studies that prove that? Because I will keep saying this, Benito Santiago was using steroids and failed a drug test. If you look at his stats throughout his career, he probably never hit more than 20 HRs during any year. When he left MLB, he barely hit 10 home runs. And that is just one example. Maybe you need to look at the list of players that actually tested positive for steroids and see how minimal their numbers were.



Have you ever heard of Steve Carlton and Nolan Ryan? Ryan pitched his last no-hitter in his 40s. And I guess you have never heard of Randy Johnson or even Curt Schilling. Both pitchers are in their 40s and had success even in their early 40s. Also Clemens had health problems this year and did not start every time he had the ball. Clemens also the last two seasons did not pitch in spring training nor did he pitch a full season the last two years as well. Also Clemens' velocity has gone down for several years. The thing that made him effective is the fact he would pitch inside and developed another pitch he did not have in his early years. Not much different than Greg Maddox who also is in his 40s and knows where to put the ball and is relatively effective despite losing movement and velocity off his pitches.

My point is that you have to do better than read what the media tells you. I have no idea if Clemens used, but there are people in recent history that we can point towards and see similar success if you know your history.

Someone always told me, in order to know your history; you must know your past. If you knew baseball history, you would know that there are similar players with similar success as Clemens. And you would also know that there are many more examples of players that tested positive, that were journey men at best in baseball and were not even close to breaking records. And everything from medical technology has helped prolong the careers of many players during the current times. Just look at someone that would have had knee surgery in the 60s and how their career would be almost over, to now when someone has major knee surgery, they might be back in a few months to play again.


Peace

Nolan Ryan was a freak of nature, and he had an incredible work ethic along with incredible mechanics. Steve Carlton was much the same and they played and retired in what the 80's.

Randy Johnson is much like Ryan, a freak of nature, but still hasn't been able to maintain much in the last five years.

Shilling and Clemens have made it as far as they have because much like Ryan they have great mechanics and location.

But Ryan and Shilling both tailed off tremendously after the age of 40. Don't have the stats but Roger Clemens had one of his best years at 40. Shilling has struggled tremendously the last few years and his performance last season was not much to write about.

So mechanics help longevity, but the help of steroids has been proven to heal the body faster, thus allowing the user to operate at a high level of performance each time out compared to the person who does not take them.

Thanks
David

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by David B

So mechanics help longevity, but the help of steroids has been proven to heal the body faster, thus allowing the user to operate at a high level of performance each time out compared to the person who does not take them.

Thanks
David

Steroid use has a long list of scientific validation amd empirical evidence for enhanced sports performance. Anaboloc steroid performance gains are as solid as the science of gravity.

Those that argue to the difference have either a lack of practical knowledge or a personal agenda ala Mr. Rutledge.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge
And folks like me can call you on that BS. Because that is all it is, BS.

Interested Ump challenged: Lessee, 24 hours, folks like me will give folks like you 24 hours to come up with your answers. Fair enough, Rut?

Time's up! Now time to shut up.

It's one thing to post an opinion, it's entirely another to post one that validates the use of anaboloc steroids.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

Time's up! Now time to shut up.

It's one thing to post an opinion, it's entirely another to post one that validates the use of anabolic steroids.

I don't think that was what Rut was doing but it is his post I will let him defend his use of steriods.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Have you ever heard of the placebo affect?

People take all kinds of things that have no benefit, but they believe it does give them something so they continue to take it. I went to my Orthopedic Doctor after tearing my hamstring during the football season. I asked the doctor about taking Icy Hot and other muscle stimulation creams and medicines and he told me flat out they have little or no benefit to make you heal an injury. But people take them and if it makes them feel it works, it cannot do any harm. But there was no medical backing to prove it did anything more than just plain rest or inactivity. So because someone claims they were helped, does not mean they were medically helped. And studies of drugs often give people things that are not the drug to prove the real affects of drugs rather than just what someone thinks. People who take many drugs think they help, that is why they take them.

Peace

I actually think he is serious. Really. I think Rut's comments on steroids use, I think he really believes this.

OMG.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

Steroid use has a long list of scientific validation amd empirical evidence for enhanced sports performance. Anaboloc steroid performance gains are as solid as the science of gravity.

Those that argue to the difference have either a lack of practical knowledge or a personal agenda ala Mr. Rutledge.

I do not have a personal agenda; I personally do not care who used or who did not use. I think that the evidence that is being used is not based on scientific evidence. You cannot throw out a couple of people and say that is proof of steroids and that is proof that someone did not use steroids or any other performance enhancing drugs. Even the claims of Clemens' and his numbers are not based on any evidence that has been proven, just innuendo and assumptions. There are clearly other players in history that had similar success in their 40s and just because they were not a "power pitcher" does not mean they could not have used steroids to stay in the game. Players in the Majors have long used amphetamines to stay in the game long before a few years ago when they were outlawed as an illegal drug by MLB.

I also think that if drug use was such a big deal, then test for HGH.

Peace