If only, huh? I hear ya. :)

More games in which he can injure his arm again . . .

Actually, it's his shoulder, but who's counting.

Now, here's something that shows I don't have a medical degree - there was an article that quoted the team trainer: "The steroid they injected in there is used to decrease the inflammation in the joint," Cubs trainer Mark O'Neal said. "He's getting irritation to the joint when he's throwing. This is an aggressive approach to quiet it down."

Steroids are illegal, right? Or is it just certain types? Maybe this was the "clear" he got from Barry?

Just wait 'till next year. :rolleyes:

My guess would be that they're using a different type of steroid, likely non-anabolic. Probably something along the lines of prednisone, just to keep the swelling down.

I thought one of the other stories I read said it was a cortisone shot. Is (something)isone just another form of steroid? Can you tell I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

To my knowledge, yes.

Amazing game in Toronto last night. 18 innings. Longest game in the bigs this year. I listened to the last 4 innings on my XM while on my way home from camp. Funny thing was that the game was scoreless for the first 8 innings. Then each team scored once in the ninth, then it was scoreless for the next 8 and a half innings, when Toronto finally won it in the bottom of the 18th.

I kind of wonder if the guy who scored in the bottom of the ninth was out there in the 16th thinking, "Why couldn't I have been thrown out?!?!" :)

Yes, it was Chuck. And the right team won as well! :)

I left a football soire hoping to return home just in time to catch the 9th. I did, and then some! LOL. I stayed up until the end.

Bad luck for LAA - they had to bail right away to go play the NYY I believe.

It wasn't great baseball to watch. There were few hits. Probably something like 7 and 7 or 8 and 8, which in 18 innings, is 3 or 4 per team per game. Uck.

LAA F4 should have had the grounder at the end. Score it as E4. I liked the idea of bringing in a 5th infielder.

I was listening to part of that game as well. To me it's fascinating to hear about all the strategy, even going so far as to affect today's game. LA used so many pitchers last night/this morning that they are looking to add another pitcher to the roster for today's game. I wonder how many pinch hitters were used, or how many players were left on the bench at the end? Heck, if this game was at Wrigley there would've been a second rendition of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame". (Although, I wonder if the personality that sang in the seventh would've still been around to sing the second time, or if their "people" would've had them outta there?)

The more interesting stat, IMO anyways, was the time of game - 4 hours 50 minutes.

When I watch BOS/NYY games on FOX, they seem to average about 4:15 - 4:30.

Could FOX maybe take a lesson from last night's game?

History for the Tampa Devil Rays!! Not that they've really had much history to talk about. But Jonny Gomes is the first Ray to hit 3 HRs in a single game. And they even won. Will wonders never cease?

I also saw that Nomar is due back to the Cubs on Friday. I had thought that he was going to be out for the season. But now, he'll be around to bat .230 for you the rest of the way. And Kerry Wood is also rejoining the team on Friday. Is he going right back into the rotation, or doing a bullpen stint, a la Schilling?

And mick, what the heck set Pudge off last night? That was quite a show he put on after getting tossed.

Say a prayer
 

I know this thread is pretty light-hearted, but I saw this article. Keep a good thought for this family:

1) Lah me, how Boston's favorite sons seem to become villians right after they leave town. Poor Nomar. Poor, poor Nomar. Now he's just another broken-down former steroid monster. One of many.

2) Kerry Wood will be going back on the DL after about 20 pitches into his first warm-up. Guaranteed. Can't change history.

3) Well, Pudge can't blame 'roid rage this time. No, the 35 pounds he lost since last year has got nuthin' to do with steroids and the new testing procedures. Nope, nuthin'. <i>Nada.</i> The lad has gone from <b>Pudge</b> to <b>PeeWee</b>.

- And whatever happened to Manny Ramirez? :D

Pitcher whined.
<font color = maroon><I>"The call that angered Rodriguez was an 0-1 pitch to Payton that Barrett called a ball. Pitcher Nate Robertson said Barrett had "given me that pitch" earlier, but Barrett said: "It wasn't even close enough where a catcher would usually argue. It was considerably inside."</font></I>

[Now, Pudge had to step up for his pitcher, plus Pudge probably just called the pitch that went "grand slam".]

<font color = maroon><I>"I warned Pudge a couple of times, but he kept going. When he went too far (with his language), I ejected him." - Detroit Free Press</font></I>


http://www.detnews.com/pix/2005/07/3...05_HL7LDE9.jpg

mick

I don't think Nomar's a villian. I like Nomar. I was merely commenting on his performance for the Cubs before his injury. I honestly hope that he hits .400 for the rest of the season and takes Chicago to the World Series. And I'm not convinced that his breakdown is due to steroids. He never put on the bulk of other obvious users; and his size didn't change much over the off-season. If he were using steroids, you'd think he'd be more resistant to injury. I have no proof one way or the other, obviously, but I never thought that he was juiced.

Absolutely nothing. Manny is, as always, Manny. Just the way I like him.

Re: Say a prayer
 

Found.
Ran away.

As it looks now, the Cubs will get Nomar, Wood, and Scott Williamson all off the DL on Friday or Sat. Since Wood and Williamson (former rookie of the year) will be in the bullpen, it's a little like the Cubs making a big trade without giving anyone up. And it appears definite Wood will be in the bullpen. And, JR, you said he will be back on the DL after 20 pitches - you missed a decimal point. It's 200 pitches. Which means he won't be back on until late Aug. :rolleyes: It will be interesting to see how he handles it, after being a starter his whole career. At least he has Mike Remlinger to ask for tips.

It will also be fun to see what trades, (if any) happen by tonight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: - And whatever happened to Manny Ramirez? :D Absolutely nothing. Manny is, as always, Manny. Just the way I like him.

Told ya so. :)

Bottom of the 8th, score tied, Manny unties it with a pinch-hit RBI single back up the middle. Nothing phases him. Manny is, as always, Manny.

What a maroon
 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ds.suspension/

Re: What a maroon, ... but is he heavier than a duck?
 

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!

VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?

CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!

BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?

VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.

CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!

BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.

WITCH:I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.

BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.

WITCH: They dressed me up like this.

CROWD: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...



WITCH: And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.

BEDEVERE:Well?

VILLAGER #1:Well, we did do the nose.

BEDEVERE: The nose?

VILLAGER #1: And the hat, but she is a witch!

VILLAGER #2: Yeah!

CROWD: We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!

BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?

VILLAGER #1: No!

VILLAGER #2 and 3: No. No.

VILLAGER #2: No.

VILLAGER #1: No.

VILLAGERS #2 and #3: No.

VILLAGER #1: Yes.

VILLAGER #2: Yes.

VILLAGER #1: Yes. Yeah, a bit.

VILLAGER #3: A bit.

VILLAGERS #1 and #2: A bit.

VILLAGER #3: A bit.

VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.

RANDOM: *cough*

BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?

VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.

BEDEVERE: A newt?

VILLAGER #3: I got better.

VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!

VILLAGER #1: Burn!

CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...

BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

VILLAGER #1: Are there?

VILLAGER #2: Ah?

VILLAGER #1: What are they?

CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...

VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt?

BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches?

VILLAGER #2: Burn!

VILLAGER #1: Burn!

CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #1: More witches!

VILLAGER #3: Shh!

VILLAGER #2: Wood!

BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?

VILLAGER #3: Because they're made of... wood?

BEDEVERE: Good!

CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh.

BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah.

RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1: No. No.

VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!

VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!

CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!



BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1: Bread!

VILLAGER #2: Apples!

VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

VILLAGER #1: Cider!

VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy!

VILLAGER #1: Cherries!

VILLAGER #2: Mud!

VILLAGER #3: Uh, churches! Churches!

VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead!

ARTHUR: A duck!

CROWD: Oooh.

BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...

VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

VILLAGER #2: A witch!

VILLAGER #1: A witch!

CROWD: A witch! A witch!...

Re: Re: What a maroon, ... but is he heavier than a duck?
 

You think Rafi got caught up in a witch hunt?

Or you saying he won't float? :)

Re: Re: Re: What a maroon, ... but is he heavier than a duck?
 

Every day I become more and more cynical with respect to the Powers-that-be. If Palmiero is smart enough to put on a batting helmet, he is smart enough to know he's gonna get checked.[When my kid ran track, he wouldn't even eat *poppy seed* rolls.]

That program is broke; the news reporting should be on the tests and not on the athletes, until a test shows actual cheating.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!" - Howard Beale
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/imag...madashell1.JPG

That program is broke; the news reporting should be on the tests and not on the athletes, until a test shows actual cheating.

[/B][/QUOTE]What am I missing here, Mick? :confused: Palmeiro flunked a streroids test. Ergo, that flunked test showed that he cheated. You can't change that. Has anybody in any sport that has flunked one of these tests <b>ever</b> said anything but what Palmeiro said?

What am I missing here, Mick? :confused: Palmeiro flunked a streroids test. Ergo, that flunked test showed that he cheated. You can't change that. Has anybody in any sport that has flunked one of these tests <b>ever</b> said anything but what Palmeiro said? [/B][/QUOTE]

They proposed the tests.
They set the parameters.
They change the parameters.
They run the tests.

I think intent must be present, positive, planned and proven. I just don't like it one bit.
mick

Well, let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. Should you not get the traffic ticket for running the red light because the cop cannot prove you intended or planned to run it? Or should you get it because you did, intent or not? Or, even closer to home (so to speak), do you not call an over-and-back violation if the player tells you he honestly did not know he couldn't be the last one to touch the ball? Of course not. So, Rafi had knowledge, or access to the knowledge of what is legal and what isn't. Maybe he's absolutley truthful when he says he did not knowingly ingest this banned substance. But he did. Case closed. Next case.

I think what Rafi's saying is he was taking a nap in the back seat when the driver ran the red light.

Personally, I find it hard to believe he would risk ingesting anything on a regular basis that might return a positive result to these tests. The guy makes enough money to hire a lab to analyze everything he comes within 50 feet of.

Yeah, that's my point. The assumption of guilt, the assumption of knowledge or access to knowledge, the assumption of willful ingestion are made.

Who cares where, how, why he took or got it? <B>They</B> don't care, even if it was the *Black helicopters*.

The <U>Pubic</U> wants to "Burn the witch", regardless....

They make me uneasy.
mick

Might want to make a minor edit there, mick. :D

Unless he's talking about a Coke can...?

Thanks, but No. I won't.
It was underlined correctly.

They proposed the tests.
<font color = red>They set the parameters.
They change the parameters</font>.
They run the tests.

I think intent must be present, positive, planned and proven. I just don't like it one bit.
mick

[/B][/QUOTE]They <b>changed</b> the parameters? :confused: What change did they make to the agreed-upon test parameters? Again, I gotta be missing something here.

Mick, that just doesn't make sense to me. When you set a law with attached limits, you set the parameters. If your state says that you're DUI at 0.080, and you blow 0.083, does that mean that you're should be not guilty as long as you say "I didn't mean it"? Does that hold true at 0.150 too? Iow, how can you ever possibly prove "intent" unless you actually catch somebody sticking a needle in their butt or swallowing something?

The test is the proof. It can't be any other way.

What do you propose as an alternative to the tests currently being used for steroids and other banned substances?

Actually, I consider myself part of the angry mob; but I'm not that angry. Maybe I'm just more towards the back of the pack. This isn't something that just got leaked today because someone took a peek at Palmeiro's morning mail and steamed open the envelope from Bud's office. I understand this has been in negotiations for a while now, so he knew exactly what he was going to say today. And he did not say he was innocent; just that he didn't intentionally do it.

We could argue all day as to whether some of the substances on the list should be banned if they are not illegal, or if he should be considered a "cheater". I think your point is cheating implies intent. And only a very few (or only one) can really answer if that's true. But, the fact that he's guilty is not really in question. There's a lot of behind-the-scenes things we never see, like letters and memos from Bud's office, communications from the Players Association, and so, on explaining this drug policy, what's involved, details on testing, and lists of banned substances. Do you really think Donald Fehr and the MLPA would let any of this just slip by without getting all the details straight? I think Dan's right - with everything that's at stake, he was stupid to not make sure everything he ate, drank, inhaled and sat next to was legal.

It's a shame; from everything I've seen and heard he's a nice guy. I'm not sure he's a cheater, but he is guilty of at least two things - ingesting a banned substance and stupidity.

Intent ! I need intent !
 

They do what's right and then what?
Honest athletes are being hosed.
I've highlighted some stuff for an easier read.
mick


<B>Nandrolone</B> in sport.

<B>Nandrolone</B> is the popular name for the anabolic androgenic steroid more properly known as 19-nortestosterone. Many different androgenic anabolic steroids, including nandrolone and testosterone itself, have been used by athletes over the years, and well-established measures are in place to detect abuse.

The apparent spate of nandrolone cases in British athletics over the last couple of years has cast a shadow over the sport as well as the individuals involved. Dougie Walker, Linford Christie and Mark Richardson are among the top athletes from various countries who have produced positive tests for nandrolone, although Walker continues to protest his innocence even after completing the two-year suspension from competition that effectively ended his career, and the others also vigorously deny any wrongdoing.

This problem is not unique, either to athletics or the UK. Football, boxing, cycling, rugby, weightlifting and many other sports have seen similar cases. Nonetheless, UK Athletics has taken the lead in investigating the possible reasons for the positives.

Were the athletes cheating?

The problem was approached with an open mind, and all possibilities were considered, including the possibility of deliberate and systematic cheating by the athletes concerned. A review of the positive cases within athletics revealed that all of the athletes had reported using a range of dietary supplements, mostly from the same supplier.

A study carried out at Aberdeen University showed that administration of these supplements to athletes and to healthy volunteers training at a more modest level resulted in some positive tests. And <B>those who tested positive recorded concentrations of 19-norandrosterone (the nandrolone metabolite whose presence is taken as evidence of nandrolone in the system)</B> of up to about 30ng per ml of urine: anything above 2ng/ml and 5ng/ml for females counts as a positive.

<B>Initial analysis of the supplements taken by the athletes and volunteers did not detect nandrolone or any other related steroids that could explain these positive tests.</B> The International Athletic Federation (IAF) <U>did not accept these results, which were, in truth, <B>difficult to explain</B>. But, because of the time pressures, it was not possible for the researchers to test a large number of supplements or a large number of athletes before presenting these data to the IAF. </U>

However, when the analysis of some of the dietary supplements was <B>repeated</B>, using an improved method developed by the IOC-accredited laboratory in Cologne, the Aberdeen and Cologne laboratories both found tiny amounts of a number of different steroids in several of these supplements. <B>The amounts of steroids, although sufficient to play havoc with the careers of these athletes, were far <U>too small to have any beneficial effects on performance</U>.</B> The <U>supplements did not say on the label that they contained any banned substances and the athletes involved believed them to be suitable for use</U>.

At about the same time as these results were coming out of Aberdeen, similar findings were reported from IOC-accredited drug testing laboratories in Germany, Canada and the USA. In Italy, <U>two athletes tested positive after taking iron tablets, and <B>Nandrolone</B> precursors were later found to be present in some of the tablets. In Germany, nandrolone has been found in creatine powder sold to athletes.</U>

Strict liability still applies

There is now a considerable weight of evidence to show that not all dietary supplements can be regarded as safe, even when the label or promotional material says they are. As before, however, the <B>principle of strict liability applies</B> (meaning that the athlete is responsible for whatever is in his or her body, irrespective of how it got there) and athletes who test positive in these circumstances are technically guilty.

Dietary supplements are not evaluated by regulatory agencies, and inaccurate labelling of ingredients is known to be a problem. Most supplements, it has to be said, will not cause problems for the athlete, and most companies that manufacture and supply these supplements are anxious to ensure the welfare of their customers. Nonetheless, the supplements reported to have been used by athletes who gave positive tests, backed up by the Aberdeen research,<U> were all apparently innocuous substances, which should not have resulted in positive tests, even in the high doses used by some of these athletes.</U> Until the picture is clarified, the <B>only safe course for prudent athletes would seem to be to avoid anything that cannot be absolutely trusted</B>.

....

So where are we now? In some ways it does not help to know what was positive last year because the market keeps changing, with old products disappearing and new ones appearing on a regular basis. <B>It is also true that products from the same batch – or even the same bottle – may be either clean or contaminated. </B>

Oh, the SCOTUS jokes never get old . . .

I agree with Mick in principle, that it can be very difficult to know what is and is not a steroid/banned substance (particularly in the realm of steroid precursors).

In addition, it's tough for the public to interpret all of this. We either notice someone not dressing for 10 consecutive games (unless they're on the Cubbies - then we automatically assume DL, not steroids) or information is "leaked" to the press. In either case, we don't know for what substance the player tested positive.

However (this being where I must disagree with Mick), MLB players need to be aware, and need to realize that if there's even a remote chance of a substance resulting in a positive test, they should stay away from it.

The cynic in me did come out today, though. Selig must be salivating over the fact that a big fish finally tested positive.

Mark,
I do not disagree with taking caution, but all *guilty* athletes do not test positive and all *innocent* athletes do not test negative.

Selig gains nothing by having a star player test positive, because baseball loses fans.

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance <B>they</b> will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

Palmeiro can only go along with the punishment without challenges, take the force-fed high road [for the sake of the game], and be as full of humility as possible so the door to Cooperstown isn't slammed in his face.
mick

Fact remains Mick, he tested positive for the banned substance shortly after felt the need to blatantly deny in no uncertain terms to a congressional subcommittee that he used them.

Kinda like Pete Rose denying he had a gambling problem, no?

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance <B>they</b> will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

[/B][/QUOTE]How do we know Palmeiro <b>hasn't</b> been taking illegal substances from his very <b>first</b> hit right on up to his 3000th. hit?

We don't. That's the problem.

Dan,

Not even close to the Pete Rose denials. Gambling is an addictive sickness. Steroids are used with purpose.

Wasn't that on March 14th that he flatly denied that useage?
Anyway, like I hoped to imply, maybe he really didn't know back then; maybe he got a bad batch of milkshakes like Sanchez. Or, maybe a masking substance didn't work this time or was subsequently identified.

Thing is, for me, stuff happens out of an athlete's control and I need to be shown intent.
mick

How do we know Palmeiro <b>hasn't</b> been taking illegal substances from his very <b>first</b> hit right on up to his 3000th. hit?

We don't. That's the problem. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly, JR. We don't know.
Nor do we know anything about Babe Ruth's useage, or Marion Jones, or Muhamed Ali.
<B>They</B> only accuse due to test results, or if they cannot test for it [because of the *cream* or the *clear*], ban the athletes due to heresay "evidence" given by deal making felons.

Find the source, prove that it was not an accident and only then, punish the abuser.
Or, ... send to ruin the names, careers, families of the accidental user.
mick

Unfortunately, we're still working on the test for that . . .

Mark,
They do it every day in courts of justice.
mick

mick - so the only time anyone's found guilty in court is when they prove intent?

Did I say that?
 

From where did you pull that? I am disappointed that you choose to paint with such broad strokes.

In the case of these supplements, I think willful wrongdoing should be shown, and I think allowances should be made for mis-labeling, contaminated processing, and outright chemical fraud. If drug companies continue those practices, then instead of all the chemical names and formulas on the list, ban the manufacturers not the athletes.
mick

Re: Did I say that?
 

I must've been a journalist in a former life, so painting with broad strokes and selective editing must be in my blood. ;)

Remember, I'm not part of that angry mob that's calling him a cheater. I agree that cheating and intent are intertwined. And there's certainly no evidence presented showing his intent. But, I am saying he's guilty of the policy that's in place. And it is his fault he's guilty. He did not take the proper precautions to make sure he was not ingesting anything that could violate the policy. You posted that article about how a few athletes tested positive when taking supplements, mostly from the same supplier. But there was no reason found as to why; so was it because that company had sloppy manufacturing procedures? Is the testing procedure flawed? Did the athletes lie about what they did and did not take? We don't know those answers, so we can't paint with the same broad brush that testing is flawed. Certainly, no test or procedure can be certified 100% accurate. Even DNA testing can only prove 99.99% accuracy. But it is, for all practical purposes, accurate enough to prove guilt or innocence in court. So, that's what we have here, a test showing a positive result on a substance that is considered illegal by an employer. Surely you aren't suggesting someone has been slipping steroids into his brownpop after games without his knowledge? Or, the people in the black helicopters switched a shippment of legal supplements with illegal ones to his hometown?

I still don't buy it Mick.

Only a fool would not spend the coupla hundred bucks & the time to pee in a cup & verify through a private lab that none of the supplements he's taking would be flagged as a banned substance.

IOW there is no good reason for him to find himself in this trouble.

Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

M&M Guy,

Don't journalists write to the 8th grade level? Or is it up or down in the last 40 years?

Yes.
He's guilty of the policy in place.
And like I said, "It's broke."

...A sprinkle of salt on your potato salad? ...Pinch of pepper on your steak? Possible, but I don't care to go there. :)
mick

Dan,
Foolishness and ignorance can surely be offered as excuses, or reasons. For those there is no defense. Just is.

But with no one talking substance, quanity, quality or source, I maintain my contention that the process is foul.

mick

BTW: I don't feel anything for Raphael Palmeiro one way or another.
<HR>
I only use my seat belt because it will cost me $75.00, if I don't.

Well, Ruth finished playing in 1935, and anabolic steroids weren't invented until the 1930's (I couldn't find an exact year). Pretty safe to say that with all the women, beer and hot dogs, the Babe didn't have much time for injecting his own butt.

I think Palmiero leaves us with two choices about how to view him: either he's a cheater or he's an idiot. Neither is flattering, but that's all that we're left with.

MLB and the individual ballclubs bent over backwards to inform the players about what could trigger a positive result. This is not a stealth operation, they're not trying to trick people into testing positive. After the new agreement went into place, it was probably stressed almost as much as the rules about gambling on baseball (which are posted in every clubhouse).

Palmiero had to know the things that would trigger a positive test -- he's on the Zero Tolerance Committee, for cryin' out loud. So did he take them on purpose (cheater) or by accident (idiot)?

I agree with Dan: he's at least guilty of gross stupidity for taking anything that might have triggered the positive result. Doesn't make it any less sad for me, tho.

Drugs were out there.

Even before the discovery of methamphetamines in the 1940s, amphetamines had been synthesized and widely used 60 years earlier.

In 1920, a small amount of cocaine stimulation was found to improved performance on an arithmetic calculating test and a word association test. Cocaine seems to work better for a free flow of associations. Students long ago sometimes studied on cocaine the way students use amphetamines now.

As late as 1909, there were 69 Coca-Cola imitations that still contained cocaine. People ordered soft drinks by asking for a "shot in the arm."

Psychomotor stimulants, most notably cocaine and amphetamine, produce a characteristic stimulation of behavior in both humans and experimental animals. At low to moderate doses these drugs induce wakefulness, increase activity, decrease appetite and stimulate the sympathetic nervous system. In humans, these doses also produce feelings of euphoria, well-being and self-confidence. The latter effects are reflected in experimental animals as powerful reinforcing actions. In appropriate experimental situations animals will work extremely hard, sometimes to the point of death, to obtain these drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/sp.../02vecsey.html

August 2, 2005
Orioles' Palmeiro Has Thrown Away His Credibility. Period.
By GEORGE VECSEY
WITH his Wayne Newton mustache and his expensive suit, Rafael Palmeiro oozed sincerity, under oath. He claimed he wanted to distance himself from the accusations of Jose Canseco, sitting right there, who had written that Palmeiro had used steroids when they were teammates in Texas in 1992 and '93.

"I have never used steroids. Period," Palmeiro testified March 17, in front of Congress. "I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never."

Now a new word has crept, and I do mean crept, into Palmeiro's vocabulary. The word is "intentionally." Because Rafael Palmeiro, with his 3,018 hits and 569 home runs, has tested positive for steroids and must sit out a 10-day suspension that sounds more like lifetime suspicion.

Palmeiro has been detected with some form of steroids in his system, in the first year of serious testing after many years of stonewalling by the players union.

The players were finally forced - against the dig-in-your-heels tactics of their union's executive director, Donald Fehr - to undergo tougher testing, and look who got caught: a bona fide candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame, at least until yesterday.

Other stars like Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi have testified before the grand jury investigating the Balco laboratory in California. Palmeiro got tripped up by a basic steroid test, presumably administered since that March 17 session in Congress.

That day, he came off the best of the five stars, which isn't saying much. Mark McGwire was pathetic. Sammy Sosa hid behind an interpreter. Curt Schilling, not accused of anything, turned unctuously bland when asked about drugs in baseball. And Palmeiro insisted he wanted to set the record straight:

"I am against the use of steroids," Palmeiro said that day. "I don't think athletes should use steroids, and I don't think our kids should use them. That point of view is one, unfortunately, that is not shared by our former colleague, Jose Canseco. Mr. Canseco is an unashamed advocate for increased steroid use by all athletes."

Good grief. Given the current suspension, the brazen Canseco now comes off as the most forthright of that sorry lot.

Palmeiro wants us to believe he has no idea how the foreign substance got into his system. But something good will come out of this, he insisted yesterday. From this shameful day onward, Rafael Palmeiro is volunteering to be an object lesson to children.

"You have to be careful what you're taking," he said, adding that children had to be careful about accepting "supplements" and "vitamins."

Of course they must. Children must also be careful not to stuff beans up their noses or stick their tongues against frozen playground poles in winter. But they probably already know that. Only a ballplayer with 20 years in the major leagues is dumb enough to swallow a bunch of stuff without getting it cleared by a doctor or a pharmacist.

Palmeiro said yesterday that he could not discuss the specifics of his positive test. His logic for why he would never knowingly take steroids was: "Why would I do this in a season when I went before Congress? It makes no sense. I'm not a crazy person. I'm not stupid."

We have all seen prosecutors on "Perry Mason" break into helpless giggles at lines like that.

People cheat. People get caught. People rationalize. Having been around other sports in which drugs and testing are part of the culture - track and field, Olympic cross-country skiing and cycling come to mind - I have come to regard athletes as essentially an addicted subsociety, even worse than the general population because the rewards are so high.

Anybody who believes athletes' bluster and dog-ate-the-homework denials deserves the disillusionment that sets in down the road. I've heard Ben Johnson and Diego Maradona insist there must be some kind of mistake.

Unless Palmeiro can come up with proof that somebody maliciously sprinkled bad stuff on his pancakes, he has to live with the broader shame that now comes from this suspension. Ten days are nothing. Welcome back, Raffy, you're hitting fifth tonight.

But if he retires after this season, Palmeiro will be up for election to the Hall of Fame in five years. He was already facing skepticism as a hitter with excellent career totals who had never dominated his sport.

Aside from the Viagra commercials (exactly how much money can a star possibly need?), this suspension is now the defining moment in Rafael Palmeiro's career - not some hot streak when he carried his team through a September pennant race, not some midnight-hour showdown in late October.

Rafael Palmeiro will forever be known for his positive test, four and a half months after his steadfast denial to Congress. What a coincidence.

E-mail: [email protected]



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Dan,
George Vecsey is merely parroting what you have already presented.

Still no one answers the questions of why, where, who.
Still no one questions the system.
Secrecy runs rampant.

Burn the Witch! Burn! Burn!
mick

Think I should sue him? ;)

No.
Burn the Witch! Burn! Burn!

Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Actually, journalism is good practice for conversing with some of the people on this board... ;)

I'm not sure the system is "broke". I wouldn't think Donald Fehr would allow anything resembling a defective system to be implemented. I'm not a big union guy, but I do recognize the MLPA is probably the most powerful union around, so it would be hard for me to acknowledge the union getting pressured into something "broken". So, it all comes back to Rafael and his choices.

You keep mentioning to burn the witch. You could be saying that about the system. Are you saying there's something you don't understand (the system), so let's get rid of it before it destroys us all?!

To me, this whole thing is like the day the skunk wandered into your backyard. The day was fine, then it started to stink. This whole mess stinks. I would rather (as much as it pains me) talk about how the Cubs will probably blow it again this year, than talk about steroids, cheating, gambling, whatever. It ruins the all-American game for me.

Care for any M&M's? I have plain, peanut, and the kind with sprinkles...(oops, never mind).

In this case, only if you can prove intent.

Still no one answers the questions of why, where, who.
Still no one questions the system.
Secrecy runs rampant.

Burn the Witch! Burn! Burn!
mick

[/B][/QUOTE]Mick, what are your suggestions then? Rafael Palmeiro shows up with a positive steroid test. Hell, any MLB ballplayer shows up with a positive test for any banned substance. Independant testing labs and a neutral arbitrator then confirm those test results as being accurate and true.

You've just been appointed Commissioner. What does Commissioner Mick do with Rafael Palmeiro now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Burning the Witch is the easiest solution. Light the match and turn away. If there's another Witch, just get another match.

<I>[Your metaphor of the skunk won't work for me in this case.
This Spring a skunk did wander through my back yard.
Not wanting it to take up residence, I killed it in my yard.
Mistake. Big Mistake!]</I>

The Tigers have a tolerable schedule after getting pounded out West (Oakland, Seattle). Still looking for .500 by the end of the season.

Yes. M&M Peanut, please. ...And please, hold the sprinkles. :)
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

I tried to help you. . . but did you take my advice? Noooooooo! :)

Mick, what are your suggestions then? Rafael Palmeiro shows up with a positive steroid test. Hell, any MLB ballplayer shows up with a positive test for any banned substance. Independant testing labs and a neutral arbitrator then confirm those test results as being accurate and true.

You've just been appointed Commissioner. What does Commissioner Mick do with Rafael Palmeiro now? [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,
Find out why, how, where it happened.
Make certain the amounts found will actually affect the athlete. Treat each case on an individual basis based upon amounts, frequency and intent.
or...
light the match and turn away and go blindly into the night.
mick

I thought it was better to light a match than to curse the darkness. . .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Acually Chuck,
That was pretty much my precise wording.
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Did you light a match to it? Burn it! Burn it! (Ok, I'm done.) :) I do remember the "skunk skandal"; I wasn't aware, however, that it went up to the great zoo in the sky. Has the aroma ever left?

And at least the Cubbies are a game over .500. Well, as of now. It's too bad I still have to listen to Cardinal fans. I'm (almost) hoping if the Cubs don't make it, that Houston catches them, just so I can be a sore loser and rub it in.

...except if you're not sure your gas tank is empty...

Test 'em all!!!!!

Burn, baby, burn......

Yankee fans...Cardinal fans...

Same difference. :p

while we're on the subject
 

More Info Coming In!
 

According to the NY Times, which is noted for <b>not</b> printing rumors, Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for Stanozolol, which is a pretty heavy-duty 'roid. According to that story, Stanozolol is <b>not</b> present in any of the iffy over-the-counter supplements. Iow, there goes that excuse. Stanozolol is the steroid that the Balco boys were dispensing, according to the leaked grand jury testimony.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...iro-test_x.htm

I didn't link to the NY Times story because that requires a membership.

Hmmmmmmm.......

How do you <b>not</b> knowingly take Stanozolol?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 06:38 AM]

Burn 'em! Steroid users! Cardinal fans! Even Yankee fans! Burn 'em all!

Wow, this crowd rage thing can be fun sometimes. ;)

No wonder he never came out and said, "It was all a mistake - here's the supplement I took - here's the lab's record of failed tests", etc. If this is correct, it certainly removes the cheater vs. stupid argument.

Now, here's another question I've been pondering: Does he still qualify for the Hall of Fame?

A good article by Bob's cousin Lee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/sp...steroids.html?

August 3, 2005
Popular Steroid Is at the Center of Palmeiro's Case

By LEE JENKINS

The positive drug test that has left Rafael Palmeiro's legacy in doubt involved the potent anabolic steroid stanozolol, a person in baseball with direct knowledge of the sport's drug-testing program said yesterday.

Stanozolol, known by its brand name, Winstrol, was most notably linked to the Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson of Canada, who was stripped of a gold medal in 1988 after testing positive for that steroid.

Now Palmeiro, one of only four major league players with more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, is being associated with the same substance.

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.

This revelation came on the day that Major League Baseball suspended its eighth player - and second in a span of 24 hours - for violating the drug-testing policy. Ryan Franklin, a starting pitcher for the Seattle Mariners, became the fourth major league pitcher suspended for steroid use. Like Palmeiro, Franklin appealed the suspension, but an arbitrator decided yesterday not to overturn it.

Palmeiro said Monday that he had never intentionally taken steroids, but stanozolol does not come in dietary supplements and is among the most popular steroids on the market. It can be ingested or injected and usually remains in a person's system for at least a month.

"It's a mildly strong to strong steroid," said Dr. Gary Wadler, a professor at New York University who is an expert in sports doping. "Potent is the word I would use."

Palmeiro, who testified in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in March that he never took steroids, spoke on the telephone yesterday with the committee chairman, Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, according to Davis's spokesman, Rob White. Palmeiro said Monday that he tried to call Davis and planned on calling Henry A. Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.

"Rafael was able to connect with Chairman Davis late this afternoon and assured him he will cooperate fully and provide his committee with any information it requests," Palmeiro's agent, Arn Tellem, said in a statement.

Yesterday, Davis and Waxman were considering sending two letters, one to Major League Baseball asking for all of the specifics on the Palmeiro testing, another to Palmeiro asking him to cooperate in releasing that information. A final decision on the letters had not been made as of yesterday evening, a committee staff member said.

Palmeiro is probably not at risk of perjury charges for his finger-pointing, categorical denial of using steroids in his sworn testimony because the positive test was taken some weeks later, the committee staff member said, speaking on condition of anonymity because official statements are supposed to come from members of Congress.

In 2003 and 2004, Major League Baseball reported 128 positive steroid tests, including 74 for the steroid nandrolone (known commercially as Deca-Durabolin) and 37 for stanozolol. But last year, only one positive test was for nandrolone and 11 positive tests were for stanozolol, an indication of a changing trend.

Dr. Harrison G. Pope, a Harvard professor, psychiatrist and steroids expert, said nandrolone is detectable in the body for a much longer period than stanozolol. Nandrolone also was common in dietary supplements before it was added to the list of controlled substances in 2005.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, the sprinter Tim Montgomery testified to a federal grand jury in 2003 that Victor Conte, head of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, told him he had given Winstrol to the San Francisco Giants' star slugger Barry Bonds. The Chronicle reported that in testimony to the grand jury, Bonds admitted to using a clear substance and a cream supplied by Balco and believed to be designer steroids but told federal prosecutors he did not know the substances were steroids. Bonds's lawyer, Michael Rains, has said that Bonds did not take illegal steroids.

Sometime after Palmeiro returns from his 10-day suspension, probably on Aug. 12 against the Toronto Blue Jays, he will be tested again. Under the current drug-testing policy, every major league player is given one unannounced test a year and can also be subjected to random tests. Violators, however, are placed in a separate category. The health policy advisory committee sets up a schedule that ensures they will be tested at another unannounced date. So far this season, 1,000 drug tests have been administered in the major leagues - there are approximately 1,200 players - and 900 have been processed.

The suspensions of Palmeiro and Franklin came after one of the most anticipated weekends of the baseball season, featuring the Hall of Fame induction ceremony and the passing of the nonwaiver trading deadline. The timing is considered a coincidence because both Palmeiro and Franklin issued appeals and needed an arbitrator to hear their cases. While Palmeiro is the highest-profile player ever to be suspended for steroid use, Franklin is a little-known starting pitcher with a 6-11 record and a 4.63 earned run average this season. He told reporters yesterday that he tested positive in early May and negative three weeks later.

"There's got to be a flaw in the system," Franklin was quoted as saying by The Associated Press at Detroit's Comerica Park, before the Mariners played the Tigers. "I have no clue."

In a study conducted by The New York Times six weeks into this season, 63 minor league players had been suspended and 29 were pitchers. Now, half the players who have been suspended at the major league level are also pitchers.

Despite the stereotype of the muscle-bound slugger constantly trying to bulk up, many in baseball say pitchers may be using steroids to increase velocity, maintain strength over a long season, and recover more quickly between appearances.

"As a whole, we've probably been surprised by the number of pitchers that have been involved with it," Mets pitcher Tom Glavine said earlier this season. "I think there was a perception it wouldn't do anything for pitchers. I think we probably all realize we might be wrong."

Murray Chass and Duff Wilson contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

My son's dog had a slight "run-in" with a skunk Monday night. Wanna know who won? The dog takes after my son -- nobody can tell either of them anything, :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

And at least the Cubbies are a game over .500. Well, as of now. It's too bad I still have to listen to Cardinal fans. I'm (almost) hoping if the Cubs don't make it, that Houston catches them, just so I can be a sore loser and rub it in. [/B][/QUOTE]

Here in St. Louis we are hoping to see a Cardinals vs White Sox World Series. Who will the Cub fans pull for then?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Here in St. Louis we are hoping to see a Cardinals vs White Sox World Series. Who will the Cub fans pull for then? [/B][/QUOTE]

The Bears.

Well, ok, I might get heck for saying this, especially when I get back up to the city, but I would have to pull for the Sox. When I grew up in the area, the big rivalry was obviously Cubs vs. Sox. My best friend growing up was a Sox fan, and the first game I ever went to was a Sox vs. Tigers game at Comiskey Park, so I never really learned to "hate" the Sox as much as Sox fans "hate" the Cubs. Then, it wasn't until I moved downstate that I learned about the Cubs/Cardinals rivalry. And about loud-mouth Cardinal fans. So, that's when I learned how to root for two teams: the Cubs, and whoever plays the Cardinals. By the way, how did that World Series thing go last year? ;)

Yep, I know - I'm just a bitter, petty old Cub fan. And proud of it. :D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Do you mean "Da Bears"?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

Dose are dem.

August 10, 2005
Fan Arrested After Jump at Stadium
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
An 18-year-old man leaped from the third deck behind home plate onto the mesh netting above the lower seats at Yankee Stadium in the eighth inning last night.

Detective Louis Camacho, a police spokesman, identified the fan as Scott Harper of Armonk, N.Y. Camacho said that Harper was taken to Lincoln Medical Center and treated for minor injuries and that he was under arrest. Camacho said it was not known if Harper was intoxicated.

Sgt. Lenny Tobie of the New York Police Department said at Yankee Stadium that the fan would be charged with reckless endangerment, and Camacho confirmed that that was a charge Harper would face.

"According to witnesses, he just jumped," Camacho said. "He was with three other friends, and he just jumped over the railing."

Harper and his friends had been discussing how much weight the screen could hold, Detective Kevin Czartoryski said, and Harper decided to see for himself.

Harper tore a gash through the netting but did not fall through. He held his head for a few moments as fans snapped pictures and yelled at him from below.

The game was stopped for about four minutes as he tried to decide how to leave. Eventually, he crawled to the back of the screen and into a box on the loge level, where the police and security officials were waiting.

The fan made his jump as Derek Jeter was putting down a sacrifice bunt in the eighth inning. Another fan made the same jump a few years ago, Manager Joe Torre recalled.

"I was hoping I wouldn't see it again," Torre said. "You can break your neck. That's the first thing that crosses your mind."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/....184.1.450.jpg

Edit: In case you're wondering, it's a Bob & Tom reference.

[Edited by tjones1 on Aug 10th, 2005 at 02:18 PM]

I was watching that game last night, because they were playing the White Sox (the OTHER team from Chicago...). The announcers initially weren't sure he he had fallen, or had jumped on purpose. What kinda surprised me was the fact they did show him on camera; I know there's usually a policy in place that they don't show on camera the idiots who run out on the field. I guess that's what made me think he might've fallen.

Obviously a Yankee fan. :D

I was surprised the YES network kept the camera on the guy too. In fact they replayed it. The initial reaction from the announcers was that he fell. I cannot imagine jumping from the upper deck to that net, it's a looooooong way down...and besides those are pretty good seats!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I say that?
 

The Bears.

Well, ok, I might get heck for saying this, especially when I get back up to the city, but I would have to pull for the Sox. When I grew up in the area, the big rivalry was obviously Cubs vs. Sox. My best friend growing up was a Sox fan, and the first game I ever went to was a Sox vs. Tigers game at Comiskey Park, so I never really learned to "hate" the Sox as much as Sox fans "hate" the Cubs. Then, it wasn't until I moved downstate that I learned about the Cubs/Cardinals rivalry. And about loud-mouth Cardinal fans. So, that's when I learned how to root for two teams: the Cubs, and whoever plays the Cardinals. By the way, how did that World Series thing go last year? ;)

Yep, I know - I'm just a bitter, petty old Cub fan. And proud of it. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, you are right, the Cards picked the wrong week to play bad. I wish they would have won but I didn't lose one bit of sleep over it. I suppose it goes with out sayin; but we had a better World Series then all the teams in MLB except one. ;)

Former Negro Leagues Star Dies at 103

CHICAGO - Former Negro Leagues star Ted "Double Duty" Radcliffe, believed to be the oldest living professional baseball player, died Thursday. He was 103.

Radcliffe, given his singular nickname by sports writer Damon Runyon after catching Satchel Paige in the first game of a doubleheader in the 1932 Negro League World Series and pitching a shutout in the second game, died from complications after a long bout with cancer, the Chicago White Sox said.

Did anyone happen to see how the A's beat the Angels yesterday?

I haven't seen that since Little League!

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/gamece...050811_ANA@OAK

Angels lose control of AL West when closer drops the ball -- literally
Aug. 11, 2005
CBS SportsLine.com wire reports



OAKLAND, Calif. -- Jason Kendall and the Oakland Athletics didn't steal the lead in the AL West.

Francisco Rodriguez and the Angels simply dropped it.

Kendall alertly dashed home from third base with the winning run when Los Angeles' miffed closer flubbed the throw back from his catcher, putting one of baseball's strangest finishes in years on Oakland's 5-4 victory Thursday.

The A's took sole possession of first place for the first time this season with their second straight comeback win against the Angels' outstanding bullpen. That achievement would be remarkable enough -- but nobody in either clubhouse ever remembered an ending as odd as this one.

"I've never seen that in my life, but that stuff happens in baseball," Kendall said. "You learn early on that you're supposed to always follow the ball. I saw it rolling away, and I didn't think he'd get it back in time. Fortunately for us, I was right."

With Eric Chavez at the plate with two runners on and two out, Rodriguez's first pitch was called a ball. The right-hander stared in and nonchalantly stuck out his glove for catcher Jose Molina's throw, but it glanced away.

Almost nobody in the Coliseum was watching -- but the A's were ready.

"I pointed at the ball, and by the time I looked at Kendall, he had already taken off," said Bobby Crosby, who reached second base on defensive indifference a moment earlier. "I was in shock. I was like, 'Are you kidding me?'"

"We were all in the dugout yelling, 'Run, Forrest, run!'" outfielder Nick Swisher said.

Kendall sprinted home and beat the throw, sending the A's roaring from the dugout to celebrate their 20th win in 23 games since they trailed Los Angeles by 8½ games on July 18.

Chavez hit a tying three-run homer in the seventh for the A's, who rallied from a four-run deficit. They took two of three from their California rivals, but not even the freewheeling A's could have predicted such a lucky finish -- and the Angels couldn't believe it either.

"A 5-year-old could have caught it," said Rodriguez, who was charged with an error. "I should have caught the ball. It's unfortunate that we lost the game like that, but what can you do?"

Until the bullpen blew it for starter Paul Byrd, the Angels seemed likely to keep their hold on first place, where they had been for all but six days this season.

Vladimir Guerrero homered and drew three intentional walks, including a free pass with nobody on base in the ninth, while Byrd allowed eight hits over six innings and left with a 4-0 lead.

But the Angels' relievers collapsed for the second straight day in front of a thrilled crowd at the Coliseum, where the A's drew more than 117,000 fans for the three-game series.

The Angels' clubhouse was predictably tense after the game, with teammates struggling to find the proper words for their closer's gaffe. Los Angeles has lost 10 of 16.

"I haven't seen a game like that, ever," said Byrd, who's winless in his last five starts. "It's disappointing he didn't make them earn it. It's unfortunate the way the last few innings turned. You don't want to take any credit away from them, but it's a gift."

The bullpen's struggles began in the seventh, when Jay Payton homered on Brendan Donnelly's first pitch. After Mark Ellis and Kendall singled, Chavez cleared the bases with his 20th homer of the season deep into the right-field stands.

Scot Shields blew a lead in Los Angeles' 4-3 loss Wednesday night, allowing three runs in the seventh. Donnelly and Shields are the busiest relievers in the Angels pen, which led the majors in ERA in each of the past three seasons.

And Shields (7-8) blew it again in the ninth, allowing two singles before Rodriguez took over.

"We have the utmost confidence in those guys," Angels manager Mike Scioscia said. "We just need to hold leads and close guys out."

All-Star Justin Duchscherer (6-2) pitched two hitless innings to win for the second straight day.

Los Angeles was in control when Steve Finley hit a two-run double in the seventh. Joe Blanton yielded six hits and four walks in six difficult innings for the A's, and Joe Kennedy gave up Finley's hit in his only inning of relief.

Finley, who has struggled with slumps and injuries in his first season with the Angels, hit his first homer since June 10 late in Los Angeles' loss Wednesday night. But with two outs and two runners on in the ninth Thursday, Finley popped out.

And now there's a new curse to worry about:

The Red Sox have not won on Ben Affleck's birthday (8/15) ever since "Good Will Hunting" came out, 8 years ago. Last night, I thought the curse was broken, but, alas, Mr. Shilling kept it alive and well.

Is it the Curse of the Benbino?

Grand slam in the 10th
 

The Tigers hit a grand slam in the bottom of the 10th inning against the Champs and still ended up 3 runs short.

I'm fine with that as long as he doesn't change his date of birth to anytime in October. :p

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Aug 17th, 2005 at 10:36 PM]

Re: Grand slam in the 10th
 

That's what happens when you give up 7 runs in the top of the 10th. Ouch. I think it just makes up for Monday's meltdown by Schill. :) Of course, the Remlinger experiment isn't working out much better. . .

Is Mariano tiring, or just getting it out of his system before the playoffs? (And I firmly believe the Yankees will be in the playoffs. Anybody who is writing them off now is just nuts.)

As surely as there is an annual off-topic baseball thread, there is also surely my annual baseball pilgrimage with my best friend, John. John and I are doing the fun, but unimaginative, tour of every major league ballpark. We've been making one trip per year since 2001, and for the last couple of years, we've visited two parks per trip. Since nobody's talking about actual games or standings, I will regale you with my personal rankings of the ballparks that we've visited thus far.

#8) Shea Stadium (NY Mets, 2003)
The ballpark itself is not attractive, nor is it in a very attractive part of town. It is, however, fairly easy to get to, requiring only one train from our Times Square hotel. Tickets were reasonably priced.

The seating was ok, the view of the field was decent. But it was virtually impossible to move to a better seat. Maybe there's a way to move down one level, but I couldn't find it. Half the fun of being at the ballpark is moving around to a better section and we couldn't do that at all at Shea.

The food was ok, and since all ballpark food is outrageously expensive, it doesn't really do any good to compare cost.

What to do after the game? Around the park is absolutely nothing. But it's not so hard to take the subway back to Times Square and hit the ESPN Club. The Rolex I got from a street vendor broke after only a couple months, tho.

#7) Olympic Stadium (Montreal Expos, 2002)

Ugly ballpark, ugly "retractable" dome, lousy food. Little to no merchandise available. The only reason we chose to go to Montreal was that we knew the team would be gone very soon.

The experience was saved, however, by three things:

a) the city of Montreal is wonderful. Lots of great things to do before and after the game. Great museums, beautiful cathedral, and there's always Mont Royal to hike. All of which we did and thoroughly enjoyed. Nice restaurants and a very "safe-feeling" downtown. Easy mass transit system made getting to the game quick and painless.

b) the cost of the tickets. We paid $5 Canadian each to get into the ballpark. So cheap, we went back the next night.

c) ease of moving to better seats. Those $5 (Canadian, may I remind you) tickets bought us left-field bleacher seats. However, as soon as the game started, we moved from the bleachers into the main "bowl" of seats, and by the 3rd inning had our feet resting on the Expos dugout. For $5, we got literally front-row seats. (Of course, it helped that the attendence on the first night was about 8,000 and only about 11,000 the next night.)

#6) Jacobs Field (Cleveland Indians, 2005)

It's tough for me to put Jacobs Field this low on the list, b/c it really is a beautiful ballpark. But it was the second of the "retro" parks to be built, and it just doesn't seem as cool as some of the ones that have been built since.

The tickets were reasonably priced, and the view of the field was pretty good, except that from our third level seats on the third base line, we couldn't see anything in the left field corner. I was very surprised by the "obstructed" view. And like Shea, the seating levels are separated from one another so that you can't move down to a lower level to get a better seat. Very disappointing.

Sadly, I can't comment on the variety or quality of the food at the park, b/c I was sick as a dog on the night of the game. But since we drove well over 1100 miles to be there, there was no way I was sitting in the hotel room.

There seemed to be lots of things to do in Cleveland (e.g., the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame), but I didn't really feel up to exploring the town.

#5) Great American Ballpark (Cincinnati Reds, 2005)

Beautiful ballpark, with lots of nice touches inside and out. Outside is a scene (to scale) of a pitcher, hitter, catcher featuring Reds players from different eras. The scene includes elevated "berms", paying tribute to the outfield at Crosley Field, where outfielders would have to run uphill (and often stumble) to chase a fly ball to the wall. There's also a rose garden, which features a white rose bush on the exact spot where Pete Rose's 4190th hit fell. Inside, there is a "riverboat" motif, which pays tribute to the importance of the Ohio River in Cincinnati's history. When a Reds pitcher strikes out a batter, smoke rises from the riverboat's smokestacks to signify that the batter got "smoked". Scattered throughout the stadium are pieces of history from old Reds ballparks, like the dugout benches from Crosley Field, which are located in the main concourse.

Our seats had a great view and were about average price. No obstructed views from our vantage point. There was plenty of opportunity to move around, but we stayed put b/c we had such a great view. We could easily have moved to the lower level, although we were told that it's very difficult to get near the dugouts.

The biggest disappointment about the park was the food. Very little variety and the chili dogs were really below average.

There were also things to do around the ballpark, the best of which was the Underground Railroad Museum. Also, parking was the cheapest here of any ballpark we've been to -- FREE!! No charge for city meters after 5 pm!! Can't beat that.

#4) Yankee Stadium (NY Yankees, 2004)

Well, the neighborhood stinks, the parking stinks, getting out after the game stinks, the view from the center field bleachers stinks, the ticket prices are outrageous and it stinks when you get all the way there and the Red Sox lose by 13 runs or whatever it was.

But, still, it is Yankee Stadium.

It has to be in anyone's Top 5, just on history alone. The park itself is simply classic. It really is a beautiful field and stadium. Monument park is pretty amazing, including the monument in memory of the 9/11 attacks.

The food was great, and not outrageously priced. We didn't stay overnight for this game, so I didn't get back to Times Square. The bigger regret is that we didn't get there early enough to take the full ballpark tour. Oh well. On the way out of town, nobody would let us change lanes b/c we were still wearing out Red Sox hats. We had to put on the Yankee hats we bought as souvenirs just to get outta Dodge.

#3) Citizens Bank Park (Philedelphia Phillies, 2004)

This park seemed to be modeled almost exactly after Pittsburgh's PNC Park. It had the same seating configuration, the same main shopping/eating concourse, although it had a huge bell (shaped like the Liberty Bell) in center field that swings back and forth and "rings" when a Philly hits a home run. It also has a huge video scoreboard, which I think was the second largest at the time it was built or something like that.

It was a little tougher to get to the stadium from the hotel than in most of the other cities we've visited. There was no easy mass transit to the park. The fans were also a little more eager to tell you how badly the team sucked than in other cities. I don't know why anyone would want to play in front of such negative "fans". But I digress. . .

The ticket prices were a little higher than average. We ended up with bleacher tickets that were over $20 apiece. Parking was also more expensive than average. On the plus side, however, it was very easy to move to better seats. After the first couple innings, we moved from the right field bleachers to the second ring of seats halfway between home and first base, and had a great view. We probably could've moved down to the first ring of seats, but didn't want to risk it. Also, the food was very good, cheesesteaks being the specialty, of course; but there was a good variety.

Being at the ballpark was great, but it was awesome just to be in Philadelphia again. There is so much cool history there, it's amazing. We had a great time at a couple of the biggies. Saw the Liberty Bell, of course, and toured the museum. We walked through the room where the Declaration of Independence was signed. Very cool stuff. We only had the one day in town, tho, so it was tough to see a whole lot.

#2) PNC Park (Pittsburgh Pirates, 2003)

If I were grading just on the ballpark itself, PNC would be #1. It's a beautiful facility with great seating, reasonable prices, great food, and very easy access to the ballpark. It was literally a walk across a bridge from our downtown hotel. The park is located at the "confluence" of Pittsburgh's three rivers and the views as you walk around inside the park are really very pretty.

And although the city itself was not as rundown as I'd been led to believe (the downtown was actually very attractive), we really didn't feel like there was a whole lot to do before or after the game.

The staff in Pittsburgh were also the most accomodating of any park we've been to. We were set to arrive in Pittsburgh around 12:30 and when we were about an hour away, we called the box office to see if we could get into a ballpark tour. Unfortunately, on game days, the last ballpark tour began at noon. But the box office person transferred us to somebody else who told us that they'd be glad to send somebody to the gate who would take just the two of us around for the tour. And they did. We got a private tour of the whole ballpark. Big ups for the customer service!

Anyway, the view of the field is great. Our tickets were down the right field line for about $25. But we were able to move to the third row right behind the Pirates dugout.

The food was great and not too expensive. Although for some reason, my clutz quotient was really high that night; somehow I managed to get both chili and pulled pork on my shorts.

#1) Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Baltimore Orioles, 2001)

The one that started the "retro" movement. This was actually the first park we visited, and it's still the best. Everything about Camden Park is top notch. The park is beautiful, the field is beautiful, the city is beautiful.

First of all, the park is easy to get to. It was a 3 block walk from our Inner Harbor hotel. We took the ballpark tour, which was great. The tickets for the game were probably a little more expensive than average, but not much. The drawback was that we got caught every time we tried to move to seats closer to the field.

The food is sensational. Boog's Bar-B-Q, crab cake sandwiches, good chili dogs. It was also probably a little more expensive than average, but the quality and variety were excellent.

The park is filled with cool historical things. The alley between the park and the warehouse (I think it's Utah Street) has little round plaques that mark where home runs have landed. Lots of tributes to Oriole Hall of Famers, including an orange seat that marks Frank Robinson's last (or farthest, maybe?) home run.

Even the scoreboard is cool, with little things to watch for. For example, at the top of the scoreboard is "THE SUN", which is the Baltimore newspaper. When an official ruling is needed on a play, the "H" lights up if it's ruled a hit and the "E" lights up if it's ruled an error.

But the thing that makes Camden Yards better than PNC is Baltimore's Inner Harbor. It's so beautiful, and there's so much to do. We toured a Revolutionary war ship, went through the Aquarium, hit the ESPN club and then found a decent pool hall -- all within walking distance of our hotel. The park is awesome, but making a whole weekend of it makes it the best of our visits yet.

Sorry to ramble, hope some of it was interesting to somebody. We're having a blast doing these trips. Just thought I'd share. Give us something to talk about until Schilling gets a start on Thrs. :)

Getting a call on your cell phone in the second inning from a Yankee fan when your team is down by 9: priceless.

BTW...bleacher tix are $12 ordered on the web. The neighborhood...well, I get down there more than a couple of times a year between Nov & Feb, never had a problem. If you can't feel secure surrounded by 56,000 other potential victims then I don't know what to say. Traffic? Parking??? This aint North Dakota ya know. Take the subway.

If D.C. is on your list, I'd go within the next three seasons, while the Nationals are still playing at R.F.K. They finally fixed the opening-day food kinks (guys sitting around me definately missed 5+ innings waiting for a hot dog), and as long as the Secret Service isn't there, it's usually not too bad to get in or out of the stadium.

Granted, it's an incredibly boring field layout, and moving down is pretty tough, but there are no obstructed views and even the upper level seats are pretty good. I'd definately take in a game there before the new stadium opens (if it opens at all, given the D.C. City Council).

P.S. - seats are pretty cheap (although I did pay an arm and a leg for opening day tickets). Seven bucks (USD) for outfield upper level, something like $8 or 9 for infield. Better seats aren't that much more expensive and are usually available.

:)

But as you might imagine, there weren't any available for the Sox series. Four bleacher tix cost me $120 on eBay. Still worth it.

I didn't say it was unsafe. Just ugly. Blech.

We just drove in for the day and then drove out to Philly. And I didn't think to find an outlying subway stop. Seemed easier to drive in and out.

Forgot to mention that on our Mets trip, we were at the game the day after the power was restored after the big blackout. That was funny. We had TV in the hotel, but no air conditioning.

Chuck,

You're doing what I would like to do someday - visit more ballparks. It seems like every year I always read about a person or two who plan their summer around getting to every major league park. With two kids and a wife who are only mildly interested at best in baseball, I may have to wait until I'm retired before I can do that. In the meantime, I'll just have to settle for getting to Wrigley and Busch once or twice a summer; they are only about a three hour drive either way. My brother-in-law has been to Milwaukee a couple of times, and he says it's a great park to visit. Good parking, clean inside, and he says pretty good food as well. Bratwursts are apparently the specialty - imagine that. And for us, Cincinnati isn't that far of a drive either, probably only a 5 hour drive, so I may have to convince the family to do that trip next year.

In a previous life (before marriage), I was able to see a game in every Big 10 football and basketball stadium, except Penn State, as well as a few others. I also used to have a great plastic cup collection from every school I visited. Then I got married, and they got boxed up and "lost". Sigh...all those memories gone...

We can't do 'em all in one summer. Too expensive and too much time needed. But we get a couple a year. We've also been to Fenway together, just not since we officially started this quest. We used to go every Patriots Day (in "a previous life", as you said :) ). That's the day the Boston Marathon is run. The Sox play at 11 am and the game is supposed to get out around the time the Marathon is finishing. But with longer game times and shorter marathon times, it doesn't work out that way much anymore.

I've also been to Wrigley; July 4, 1994. Game 1 of a doubleheader with the Rockies. Great day. Happened to be "Taste of Chicago", World Cup soccer, and fireworks all on the same day, so getting around town was crazy!!! But still a great day.

Where else? I've been to the Metrodome, to Busch, to Riverfront. I think that's it. I've been to Kauffman Stadium, but just peeked in b/c we were there on an off-day.

Ouch! No fair. I better keep my hats safe. . .

Dodger Stadium in L.A., Chuck. Best stadium in MLB. Absolutely beautiful. And you can also have your pick of any seat in the house after the 7th. inning.

All domes are ugly. Leave the rest of them 'til last and hope somebody blows 'em up before you get there.

I've heard announcers say that as well, but it just doesn't look any different on TV than any other place. Is it where it's located in the valley? Is it kept extra clean and neat? Or is it just the California girls that populate the stands?

Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Stadium) isn't ugly at all. Easy to get in and out and lots of extras to check out. The old Astrodome was so cavernous but it always beats an outdoors game in the Houston heat.

I've been to games in Atlanta both pre and post their successful seasons. It's a very corporate city so the fans are not totally sold out for the Braves and lots of the fans will cheer for the opponent. Traffic is always tough there even going to the grocery store. Best bet is the Marta train and then shuttle over.

Games at Wrigley are always fun especially if you go to a day game.

Busch is a neat environment as the fans are really into the game and the team is doing so well. Plus right now you can get a good look into the new stadium as it's being build.

Parking and eats are expensive wherever so it's hard to compare.

I would love to do a day/night game in Chicago and then do the same in NY and LA. Wow, what a grea 3 days of baseball that would be.

I've tried to do that as well, but it seems as though the schedule-makers try to keep each team in town at different times, at least as far as the Cubs and Sox go. There's usually only 2 or 3 dates a year max where the Cubs play a day game, and the Sox have a night game. I never really checked to see if the same thing happens in NY and LA. It would certainly be a fun day to experience, although I'm not sure how my body would react to hot dogs all day.

It's a great day - unfortunately, my high school was just south of the CT-Mass border, so I never got the day off in high school.

A roommate of mine in college, however, was from the Boston area. We skipped classes the past two years to watch the game - always a fun time, even if it's only on ESPN.

Good prediction, M.

Sigh... :rolleyes:

Wanna know my lotto numbers, too?