STFU Curt Schilling (for calling out Roger Clemens)

[Benny B]

Tre,

Don't confuse the judicial requirement for guilt with overwhelming evidence of guilt.  Kirk Radmomski and Brian McNamee went before the Feds and Senator George Mitchell, 2 institutions that you do not fuck with.  They had absolutely no motive for lying, in fact, if they were caught lying, their immunity deals were off and they were going straight to the hooskow.  Do you really believe that Clemens maintained that power well into his 40's without the use of AAS? That's just plain naive.   Do you notice that only a couple of the 90 or so players are opening their mouths to protest this report.  For the most part, they know they got caught and they are wise to sit back and shut the fuck up until it blows over.  What I find more offensive than a witch hunt, is when some arrogant piece of shit like Clemens wags his finger in our faces and professes his innocence to us in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, taking us all for a bunch of brain dead yokels 

What he said 

[AllDrugs]

Curt Schilling wants Roger Clemens to prove he *didn't* use. 

How f'ing stupid is that?

His comments show just how stupid America is when it comes to this idiotic witch hunt. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3162301

------------------------------------------------------------

Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling called on Roger Clemens to give up the four Cy Young Awards he's won since 1997 if he can't clear his name from allegations that he used steroids to prolong and enhance his career.

"If he doesn't do that then there aren't many options as a fan for me other than to believe his career 192 wins and three Cy Youngs he won prior to 1997 were the end," Schilling wrote Wednesday in his blog, 38pitches.com. "From that point on the numbers were attained through using (performance-enhancing drugs). Just like I stated about Jose (Canseco), if that is the case with Roger, the four Cy Youngs should go to the rightful winners, and the numbers should go away if he cannot refute the accusations."

Baseball isn't like bodybuilding, guys.  It's an actual sport and it's competitors should have some integrity.  Guys in bodybuilding trade theirs in because they supposedly "have to" to be competitive.  Stealing signs is about as far as you need to go regarding cheating in baseball.  Amphetamine use is as far as drugs in baseball should go.

I'm not sure why people on a bodybuilding board would take about any legitimate sport, anyway.

[Tre]

Clearly you havent bothered to read any of the excerpts of the Mitchell Report...

Correct, because it's a witch hunt based upon a false premise. 

regarding Clemens.  McNamee details the DATES, DRUGS, DOSAGES AND INJECTION SITES that he ADMINISTERED to Clemens.

Did the other guy corroborate the stories?

[small]

Correct, because it's a witch hunt based upon a false premise. 

Did the other guy corroborate the stories?

   
You can decide for yourself.

Even if your a clemens fan it is hard to question why the report would tell the truth about pettitte and make it up about clemens. clemens should be questioning his boy pettitte for confessing to what was in the report not mitchell or mcnamee.

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/071213/mitchell_report.pdf

[Tre]

Pettitte says that he used HGH on 2 occasions.  Sorry, America, but he doesn't get to say he "used steroids", nor can he be labeled by the public as having "used steroids".   

I don't know what motivated Andy to admit to anything, but he chose to get in front of the story and that's often a good way to get a story to 'go away'. 

[Benny B]

Pettitte says that he used HGH on 2 occasions.  Sorry, America, but he doesn't get to say he "used steroids", nor can he be labeled by the public as having "used steroids".   

I don't know what motivated Andy to admit to anything, but he chose to get in front of the story and that's often a good way to get a story to 'go away'. 

It's called a having a conscience. 

[Tre]

It's called a having a conscience. 

Hey, that's cool.  Andy is considered to be one of those guys who has high moral values and who lets his life be an example. 

[small]

Pettitte says that he used HGH on 2 occasions.  Sorry, America, but he doesn't get to say he "used steroids", nor can he be labeled by the public as having "used steroids".   

Who said he used steriods the report is entitled:
REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL
OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO
THE ILLEGAL USE OF STEROIDS AND OTHER
PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCES
BY PLAYERS IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

3) Your assertion that the hearsay 'evidence' providers have no reason to lie does not pass the litmus test.  In the case of McNamee, I have not heard him say that he has administered any substance to anyone (correct me if I'm wrong on that).  My understanding is that he was responsible for providing advice to his clients about certain products. 

I would call it first hand information not hearsay when its the person sticking the needle in telling the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/steroid.report/

[Camel Jockey]

Schilling and his teamate fatpapi probably used/use too.

Most of these guys have used or use something. Clemens just got caught.

And shouldn't Curt Schilling turing out so great in Arizona come into question?  Seems reasonable if you're gonna point out Clemens in Toronto.

[Moosejay]

Everyone is missing the point.  It's not up to Clemens to "prove" anything...  his accusers have to prove their case, otherwise he's innocent until proven guilty.  That's the way it works in America, but it seems like the 50% of Americans with double-digit IQ's always forget that.  For example, I could publicly say, "Mike is a child mollester".  Would that mean that you ARE a child mollester unless you could prove that you're not?  Of course not...you don't have to prove anything in that case...  it is up to the person making the accusation to offer solid proof.

PS:  even if Clemens did have the burden of proof, which he doesn't, a polygraph doesn't prove anything...  they are notoriously unreliable, and can be beaten or give false positives which is why they are inadmissible in court.

Yes, you could say "Mike is a child molester", and, however untrue that may be, a SEED of truth would be planted in the minds of all.

And "Mike" would forever be saddled with that burden (true or not).

Like it or not, that is how it is here.

Mike

[Tre]

Yes, you could say "Mike is a child molester", and, however untrue that may be, a SEED of truth would be planted in the minds of all.

And "Mike" would forever be saddled with that burden (true or not).

Like it or not, that is how it is here.

Mike

Thankfully, you've got people with common sense like Goat and myself that are happy to tell the media that they're a bunch of idiots using sensational headlines to grab ratings instead of presenting any well-founded arguments or opinions. 

Today, on KNBR, the local guys were saying that McNamee 'would not tell the truth about some stuff and then make up other stuff'...and to them, that was a LOGICAL conclusion.  What a couple of fucking tools!  I had too much shit to do today, but I fully intend to call them on that when I get the chance. 

[Moosejay]

Thankfully, you've got people with common sense like Goat and myself that are happy to tell the media that they're a bunch of idiots using sensational headlines to grab ratings instead of presenting any well-founded arguments or opinions. 

Today, on KNBR, the local guys were saying that McNamee 'would not tell the truth about some stuff and then make up other stuff'...and to them, that was a LOGICAL conclusion.  What a couple of fucking tools!  I had too much shit to do today, but I fully intend to call them on that when I get the chance. 

Agreed...make sure you call them and give 'em Hell...the media are the WORSE for misinformation and the spreading of it.

Mike

[Hedgehog]

Correct, because it's a witch hunt based upon a false premise. 

Did the other guy corroborate the stories?

How do you know that it is based upon a false premise if you haven't read what is based upon? 

[Tre]

How do you know that it is based upon a false premise if you haven't read what is based upon? 

I maintain that there is nothing ethically wrong with the use - regardless of purpose - of HGH by athletes. 

One of my buddies argues that HGH allows an athlete to grow bigger and stronger, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over his competition. 

Doesn't protein do the same thing?  Should we prohibit athletes from eating red meat? 

I've never used HGH, but if I had done so in order to extend my athletic career, I would not have lost a wink of sleep over it. 

I understand that not everyone will want to use it or believe that using it is proper (in the context of athletic training and competition), but until someone provides a legitimate ethical argument against its use, my position stands. 

[tleilaxutank]

I maintain that there is nothing ethically wrong with the use - regardless of purpose - of HGH by athletes. 

One of my buddies argues that HGH allows an athlete to grow bigger and stronger, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over his competition. 

Doesn't protein do the same thing?  Should we prohibit athletes from eating red meat? 

I've never used HGH, but if I had done so in order to extend my athletic career, I would not have lost a wink of sleep over it. 

I understand that not everyone will want to use it or believe that using it is proper (in the context of athletic training and competition), but until someone provides a legitimate ethical argument against its use, my position stands. 

Why are you honing in on HGH why not steroids? It fits the same arguement your outlining...This thread is a trainwreck and a testament to the complete lack of integrity and intelligence in today's society....


merry xmas!

[Moosejay]

I maintain that there is nothing ethically wrong with the use - regardless of purpose - of HGH by athletes. 

One of my buddies argues that HGH allows an athlete to grow bigger and stronger, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over his competition. 

Doesn't protein do the same thing?  Should we prohibit athletes from eating red meat? 

I've never used HGH, but if I had done so in order to extend my athletic career, I would not have lost a wink of sleep over it. 

I understand that not everyone will want to use it or believe that using it is proper (in the context of athletic training and competition), but until someone provides a legitimate ethical argument against its use, my position stands. 

I have engaged in discourse with top Yale and Harvard orthopedic surgeons over the nuances of HGH, and, I must say, most are uncertain in their opinions and the pros and cons of the use of such.

Mike