The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 3.80 average. Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 16, 2007, 01:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
What not a single post in this thread about the release of the Mitchell report!

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 16, 2007, 08:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
For entertainment, see the Baseball forum's thread.
Mitchell Report?
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 17, 2007, 02:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
What not a single post in this thread about the release of the Mitchell report!
Just a question. . . Where are all the people who have been alleging that the Patriots' Superbowl wins may have been tainted? Now we know that the Yankees' last 2 World Series wins were tainted.
I haven't heard much in the national media about that. Lots about Clemens personally; but almost nothing about an asterisk for the Yankees' 1999 and 2000 wins.

Former Sox GM Dan Duquette, however, was recently seen in his custom made "I TOLD YOU SO!!" t-shirt.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 17, 2007, 02:47pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
Just a question. . . Where are all the people who have been alleging that the Patriots' Superbowl wins may have been tainted?
You don't have to carry that burden, Chuck.
No one really cares.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 17, 2007, 02:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
Just a question. . . Where are all the people who have been alleging that the Patriots' Superbowl wins may have been tainted? Now we know that the Yankees' last 2 World Series wins were tainted.
I haven't heard much in the national media about that. Lots about Clemens personally; but almost nothing about an asterisk for the Yankees' 1999 and 2000 wins.

Former Sox GM Dan Duquette, however, was recently seen in his custom made "I TOLD YOU SO!!" t-shirt.
Well...lessee...Clemens is this close to suing everyone over the report (and I bet you're pissed off anyways that whatever he did take didn't lead to a red sox WS win). Pettite admits he took HGH for 2 days to help with an injury but stopped the treatment (HGH was not a controlled or banned substance then btw). Who else...oh yeah, Chuck Knoblauch. His post season BA of .258 made a huge difference in the final outcomes

Anyway...why are the Pats wins tainted?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 19, 2007, 09:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Clemens speaks out: "I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life."

I wonder if he was pointing his finger at a Congressman when he issued this statement. . .
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 19, 2007, 09:53am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
Clemens speaks out: "I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life."

I wonder if he was pointing his finger at a Congressman when he issued this statement. . .
Help me out here. What are you/Clemens implying about whom?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 19, 2007, 10:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
Help me out here. What are you/Clemens implying about whom?
mick - I think Chuck is referring to Rafael Palmeiro and his testimony in front of Congress. Palmeiro said essentially the same thing, while pointing to a Congressman. Not too long after that, we found out he was lying.

Is it just me, or does anyone else look at Clemens' statement with the same degree of cynicism? "I did not take... any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career." There are many substances that were not banned by baseball, but were still considered illegal to obtain without a doctor's prescription. Or, perhaps, he found a "less than honest" doctor who could prescribe the substances for something other than their original intent. This way Clemens could say he was "legally" taking these substances, because he had the prescription.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Dec 19, 2007, 10:20am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
mick - I think Chuck is referring to Rafael Palmeiro and his testimony in front of Congress. Palmeiro said essentially the same thing, while pointing to a Congressman. Not too long after that, we found out he was lying.

Is it just me, or does anyone else look at Clemens' statement with the same degree of cynicism? "I did not take... any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career." There are many substances that were not banned by baseball, but were still considered illegal to obtain without a doctor's prescription. Or, perhaps, he found a "less than honest" doctor who could prescribe the substances for something other than their original intent. This way Clemens could say he was "legally" taking these substances, because he had the prescription.
Oh, I understand now.
Now, what am I missing that it was wrong for a player to take prescription, non-banned drugs?
[You don't have to reply, I imagine it's way to complicated for me to grasp.]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WARNING!! Annual Off-Topic Baseball Thread. Esteemed Members BEWARE!! ChuckElias Basketball 1299 Sat Mar 31, 2007 07:58pm
OFF TOPIC THREAD!!! Dueling off topic baseball threads!!! Dan_ref General / Off-Topic 34 Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:15am
WARNING!!! WARNING!! Annual off-topic baseball thread!! ChuckElias Basketball 583 Sat Jan 21, 2006 05:28pm
WARNING!! ANNUAL OFF TOPIC BASEBALL THREAD!!! Dan_ref Basketball 16 Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:32pm
WARNING! Off-topic! Do NOT read if you are at all offended by baseball threads!! ChuckElias Basketball 508 Tue Nov 09, 2004 09:51pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1