Raffy Says He's Innocent & I Believe Him
Former Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro said in a recent interview on ESPN that he stands by his claims of innocence regarding purposely taking performance-enhancing drugs. He says he was injected by a temammate, presumably Miguel Tejada, but with vitamin B-12 (or at least that's what he thought it was). Palmeiro says that he never took anything and you could see his production, from high school to college and the pros where he succeeded through hard work and did not cheat. If indeed he did test positive, he says that whatever he took, be it the B-12 injection or anything else, it must have been tainted and he knew nothing about it. Raffy also goes on to say that he hopes the so-called list of those who tested positive comes out as he wil be exonerated and had nothing to gain by taking performance enhancers at that point in his career.
And you know what? I believe him. Raffy has always been honest to the press, the fans and the public in general. He sat in front of the politicians and pointed his finger at them, saying, "I don't know how to be any clearer than this. I never took performance-enhancing drugs." He now is vilified because of that, while others in question neither confirm nor deny their accusations. Only because Raffy flatly denied involvement is he now scorned by the entire baseball community and embarassingly, his former rabid fans of the Baltimore Orioles.
Now is the time to make amends with him. Every Oriole fan should pull out their Palmeiro jerseys, t-shirts and memorabilia and stand up to support the man that was adored by legions of Bird fans during his two tenures here in Baltimore. We should be ashamed of ourselves for the way we abandoned him in his time of need. His records and efforts as an Orioles should be acknowledged and applauded, publicly, by the fans and by the team as well. If us fans can start a swell of emotion to recall his time as a proud Baltimore Oriole who has accomplished what only a handful of major leaguers ever did, then perhaps the team wil get off their high horse and follow in suit.
Now is the time, Baltimore. Bring back Raffy and let's get the ball rolling to put him where he belongs - back in our hearts and the Baseball Hall of Fame!
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
1 recs |
145 comments
Comments
I'm torn
Some of the points you make are very valid, expecially his consistency through the years.
He also never showed any of the tell tale signs of roid usage – popeye arms, acne, nagging injuries, etc.
Hey Smails, you scratched my anchor!
by elktonfan on Jul 4, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not everyone jucies to get huge
The #1 reason pitchers juice is to recover from injuries quicker. I’d say his level of production at an advanced age is PROOF he juiced, not proof he didn’t.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 4, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know if it's the #1 reason pitcher juice - it also adds velocity.
Guys in the minors who are sitting at 90 and not advancing are surely not juicing for the recovery time.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 4, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Raffy was one of the first to get caught
that proved that you could be on the juice and not look like a linebacker.
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey
by jobe on Jul 4, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't agree
his consistency through the years in his production should open you eyes to the fact that he didn’t. There was no “explosion” in stats, just consistency through his entire career, especially his time here and in Texas.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 4, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raffy says he's innocent and I think he's a liar.
What ELSE is he gonna say? “Yup, I lied to Congress, I did it, you got me.”
Of course he’s not gonna say that.
Raffy juiced, got caught, and thinks he can lie his way out of it. Case closed.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 4, 2009 2:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just your opinion.
I believe him and think he should be given his just due, and that should be induction into the HOF!
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 4, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, no, I speak for millions
I write on the Internet.
Dude yeah, it’s just my opinion. That’s kinda what we do here.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 5, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he should be in the HOF regardless.
Otherwise you have to exclude all of the best players from this generation (Bonds – the best player ever, Clemens – one of the best RHP ever if not the best, Manny – one of the best RHHs of all time, Palmeiro – member of the tiny 3,000/500 club), and who knows whether the people who’ve never tested positive or haven’t been mentioned as steroid users are actually clean? Unless there’s some way to be 100% sure who used and who didn’t I think you have to just go based on performance and Raffy earned it with performance.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 4, 2009 2:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
criminals shouldnt be allowed in the HOF
he lied to CONGRESS, not just baseball fans. i’m not a huge fan of congress, especially the current one, but i don’t think anyone should be rewarded with anything except jail time if they lie they commit a federal crime
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahaha
You should take a look at some of the folks in the HOF if you’re concerned about criminals. There are murderers, tax evaders, drug users, etc in there. Let’s not get all high and mighty. It’s not the “Hall of Moral and Ethical Players.” for fuck sakes.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
and i dont really think they should be in hall either regardless of how good they were.
pete rose anyone?
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you want to change the name?
That’s absurd.
Let’s kick out all the guys who broke a law. Ridiculous.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what i'm saying
is if pete rose cant be in the hall, why should the other criminals? i also find it funny that pete was essentially banned from the hall for betting on games rather than his tax evasion/fraud. if we’re going by that, steroid users shouldnt be allowed in because they damaged games regardless of the fact that they may or may not have broken federal law.
any way you slice it, steroid users shouldnt be allowed in the hall
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so how do you differentiate?
Who the hell knows who was using and who wasn’t?
If you’re going to take that kind of stand than everybody in the whole era should be banned from the HOF. That just seems absurd to me.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i agree that you gotta prove it
we’re talking about raffy here. he tested positive making him guilty
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that how do you differentiate?
There is no way to say that a good percentage of the pitchers he was facing weren’t also using steroids is there? Also he tested positive at the very end of his career, is there any proof that steroids were responsible for his statistics? Even if he was using them for his whole career, if a good percentage of the league and pitchers he was facing was also using them, then he should still be a Hall of Famer because in the environment in which he played he was one of the best.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats a tough one
thats why i brought in the whole lying to congress thing. we really cant prove much about the guys he was playing against which sucks. steroids have and will continue to destroy the HOF forever. personally, i would say ban anybody who tested positive regardless of whether or not the competition was juicin too. unfortunately that will raise the question of when it was technically illegal to use roids
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't care about the Congress shit.
What do they expect people to do when they bring them to publicly testify about shit that is embarrassing at the least and career threatening at the worst? They should be concentrating on more important things.
Also who even knows if he was lying to congress? The positive test came after that. Not saying that I necessarily believe he wasn’t lying – just saying who knows.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i really cannot support that first statement
thats why we have a huge accountability problem in government today. bill clinton lied under oath and essentially got a way with it. i’d say his situation was rather embarrassing and was DEF career-threatening. clearly they dont care much about the important things either.
as for the second statement, touche.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you bring people in to testify about embarrassing and career threatening things they are going to lie.
It’s as simple as that. So if Congress wants to do that they should make sure it matters. Avoiding things like steroids in professional sports and whether or not somebody got a blowjob from somebody else is probably not the best use of their time. Maybe focusing on the economy or the two wars we’re in the midst of might make some more sense…
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it starts at the top tho
you’d hope the prez would set a good example.
and since when has congress focused on something useful? they are too busy adding hundreds of pages to healthcare bills etc
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could give two shits about what the prez does with his dick.
I care much more about what he does with our military and our money.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
true
although it seems possible that what hes doing with his dick gets in the way of what he should be doing with the military
just sayin
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it's possible.
But I think it’s much more likely that the congressional uproar about it provided a much bigger obstacle to getting more important things done than the initial/ongoing indiscretions.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I could rec this 1 million times, I would.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 6, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in reponse to the sexscapades getting in the way?
these long threads own me….
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clinton? Really? We're going THERE?
Yeah, the whole being impeached and disbarred thing, man, he TOTALLY skated on that. What he did was WAAAAAY worse than invading the wrong fucking country and spying on his own people.
/Sorry, political rant over. Just couldn’t let that one go. Flame me as you will.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 6, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't forget bankrupting the country
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if thats a knock on bush
that is false. barack obama is already gearing up to spend more in his first 6 months than bush did in his first 7 yrs as president
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh it's definitely a knock on Bush.
You know since he got us into this mess…or was Obama president for the last 6-7 years that led to this current situation?
There’s a difference between spending trying to fix the problems created by your predecessor and just spending.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea that spending's working out really well
my local government is using those funds to erect signs that say “this was paid for using stimulus money” and we’re still shedding jobs. and then there’s joe biden: “we may or may not have misread the economy and pulled the trigger too quickly with the stimulus.” gee thanks joe biden
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure why it's Obama's problem if your local government is retarded.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
where do you think that money came from?
no accountability
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Fox News has something of interest to you on right now.
You should tune in.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i got that
….clearly watching CNN would get me much better informed on the issues at hand. or maybe reading the NYT.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"
So sayeth one Richard B. Cheney.
So it’s a little late, and MORE than a little hypocritical, for Rs to start playing the “fiscal responsibility” card.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
by sluggo 2.0 on Jul 6, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well you didnt answer my question
i’d be happy to check out any unbiased sources. in fact, i would absolutely love to get my hands on that.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure there is such a thing.
But there are very obviously sources of info that are ridiculous biased and Fox News is an easy one.
So apologies if that offends you, but the ideas you were spouting (like the absurd comment about Obama spending more in his first 6 months than Bush spent in his last 7 years) sound an awful lot like Fox News drivel.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dont watch fox news
nor will i tune into CNN or NBC
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NPR! Just kidding, they obvious have a liberal bias but I love this station anyways.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and according to the wash post (another obama lovefest source)
obama will add 4.9 trillion in public debt as compared to 2.8 trillion from bush
(this does not include the 2.6 trillion in 2009 split almost 50/50 between bush and obama)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we'll have to see how it turns out.
Not exactly the same as what you said earlier though that Obama has ALREADY spent more than Bush did in his 7 years.
Also like I said earlier a massive portion of his authorized spending is aimed at fixing problems that arose during the previous administration.
And at least the democrats don’t claim to be all fiscally conservative while running up record deficits – we believe government spending to be a good thing.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay maybe i was a bit too harsh
i was just looking at these really big numbers…..787 billion for the stimulus, 634 billion for healthcare, and another 410 billion omnibus spending bill………..thats a lot of billions! but its okay. i work 40+ hr weeks so obama can pay for it!
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well at least you can be comforted
by the fact that Bush decreased taxes on the richest people in the country and continued taxing you at the same rates while turning a budget surplus into a record deficit. That worked out well!
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh?
“From 2000 through 2005, income taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls”
per congressional budget office
not exactly sure “no change in income distribution” is a decrease
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's INCOME TAXES PAID
not income tax rates.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats where the "despite no change in income distribution" comes in
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're claiming that Bush
did not cut taxes for the wealthy? Excuse me while I laugh. And laugh.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope i am not claiming that
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/13/bushs-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-actually-favor-the-poor/
what totally sucks is the fact that my measly salary makes me a “rich” person per obama
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh FFS!
That’s a blog!
And if you read the BLOG it says that the tax payers in the lower income brackets who he supposedly cut taxes for were hardly paying taxes anyways. So he made meaningless cuts for low income earners and dramatic meaningful cuts in high earners.
And I’m confused – did your taxes go up when Obama took over? Because mine went down and I’m neither wealthy nor poor.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm i saw a nice cut
and i am by no means a high earner. no change since then but with healthcare looming and the included healthcare tax (which ironically was a part of the mccain that “america can’t afford” according to obama), i’m going to see a lovely increase
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well until you do don't complain.
And if an increase is required to support the two wars that your guy got us into, fix the financial mess that your guy/guys got us into with their BS trickle down economics/free market corrects all so no need for regulation/home ownership heals all theories, and create a healthcare system that works, then you should either move to a country where those things don’t need to happen or get used to it. Nice things cost money.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see thats exactly the problem
the healthcare bill is over 1000 (yes one thousand) pages. who is going to read all of that? its loaded with so much shit that is going to cost a fortune! i am 100 percent against socialized healthcare. i dont need the government telling me what treatment i need or what doctors i can see (nor do i want them seeing any of my medical records). you’re right…nice things cost money. i’m paying my insurance premiums right now and cant complain.
btw….bush isn’t “my guy.” i’m not a bush supporter, i’m an obama critic.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you'd prefer an insurance company dictate that?
And I agree that the bills shouldn’t be filled with crap, but that’s the way it is. It’s almost impossible to get a clean bill through these blood suckers it seems like. They all get their pet projects added to it.
As far as socialized medicine, unless I’m confused nobody is suggesting that. Obama is simply proposing having a public option to create more competition with the private companies. And if you like your insurance company (I sure as hell don’t – getting my arm surgery was an absolute disaster) you can keep it, but hopefully the presence of a public option would make your premiums a little lower. That’s the goal at least.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to be honest, yea i would prefer the insurance company
i’ve been thru cancer treatments out the wazoo and only had very few issues with my insurance company which was pretty nice.
that public option you speak of is going to become the only option when healthcare taxes are put in place. the whole point of the healthcare taxes is to create the desire for that “public option.” with a tax in place, you’ll want the public option in order to avoid paying increased taxes which will essentially eliminate your ability to choose your own doctor. it also means that you and i will be paying so that somebody else can have healthcare too. i dont need a “czar” to tell me how to use my money
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the people who don’t have healthcare currently, who in your hypothetical development above we would be paying for, should they just go without?
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by the way, if we just say good luck to the folks without health insurance, then we end up paying for their healthcare anyway when they go to hospitals and are treated “for free”.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also don't be absurd. check your math.
Stop listening to Sean Hannity.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And this is where I regret ever getting this conversation started
Forget I ever said it.
Team America, Fuck Yeah!
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 6, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
coming again
to save the motherfuckin day YEAH
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
it may not be the hall for moral and ethical players, but the guidelines state:
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17
by daveh873 on Jul 6, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha yea
they failed on that one. MLB apparently turns a blind eye to that “integrity” part
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didnt vote for him
if the voters chose to follow the guidelines or not is their concern, not mine. All i’m saying is if you look at the guidelines, these guys dont deserve to be in. That being said, i’m not even really sure if I think they should be excluded. It’d be real wierd to hear my kids in 30 years look back and say “hey dad, I looked up this Clemens guy’s stats. Why the hell isnt he in the hall!?”
Of course, i’ll probably make some joke about how if you are a Yankee, Blue Jay, and Red Sock, then you are a huge jerkoff and therefor cant be in the hall.
"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17
by daveh873 on Jul 6, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if the guidelines have been ignored since the HOF's inception?
Seems like they should continue to be ignored. The people who are already in the HOF speak louder for what it’s about to be a member than the written guidelines IMO.
I agree with you – it would just be crazy for guys like Clemens and Bonds to not be in the HOF. Their statistics are just too incredible.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exhibit A – Ty Cobb explain please.
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
The guideline, and note it says guideline, does not say character is a precondition.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Integrity????? Sportsmanship???? Character????
lol what happend? did your bolding run out of ink before you got to those three??? lol
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, you’re missing my point. You’re asking how Ty Cobb got in given his shady. I’m saying look at the guidelines. No where does it say “integrity, sportsmanship, character” are not preconditions. They are merely one factor(s) to consider along performance.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ignore my earlier post. too many typos.
No, you’re missing my point. You’re asking how Ty Cobb got in given his shady character. I’m saying look at the guidelines. No where does it say "integrity, sportsmanship, character" are preconditions. They are merely one factor(s) to consider along performance.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to echo one of your points earlier, these guidelines aren’t a perfect reflection of how voting works. Voters tend to weigh a “player’s record,” however imperfectly, heavily while using character (along with other things like playoff record) as something to consider among borderline cases.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok...
So if performance was enough to ignore fighting a groundskeeper, strangling a woman, assaulting a handicapped fan (with no hands), assaulting a black elevator operator for being “uppity” and stabbing a black night watchman who intervened, not to mention rumored game-fixing/gambling…then surely performance is enough to ignore failing a single steroids test.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’m with you man. But I’m just poinint out why Ty got in since you asked. Personally, I’m fine with letting steroids users into the HOF.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I mean I know why he got in – I was just asking that question to illustrate the fact that unseemly people are in the HOF and that we shouldn’t get all high and mighty when it comes to determining who gets in and who does.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm the one that said "guidelines"
it says “rules”. It also doesnt state if you have to take all the factors into account or just whichever ones you chose, but if we pick and chose, then maybe Pie can get in because he tries hard and has good charecter and doesnt complain and is a good sportsman. I’d imagine that they wanted all those factors taken into account.
But again, i’m not necessarily saying they should all be kept out, just saying maybe its not so cut and dry as “he was great, he’s in”
"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17
by daveh873 on Jul 6, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw
here’s the rules if anyone wants to know how people are actually supposed to vote
"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17
by daveh873 on Jul 6, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may not have lied
because at the time, he did not “know” that the B-12 shot was tainted, as he said. Therefore, if you believe him, which I tend to do, he did not lie.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 11, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your whole writeup
pretty much adds up to “I believe Raffy because I want to believe Raffy.” If it had been Tejada who came out and said “Oh, well, I had this B-12, and I got all my needles mixed up one time… etc” That might be worth something.
1933 was a bad year
by Senatorrosewater on Jul 4, 2009 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
We all choose to believe what we want. I also believe he deserves to be forgiven and supported for what he didn’t know was going into his body. Tejada, Giambi, Clemens, even McGwire, they are another story.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 4, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no reason to believe Raffy will tell the truth...
…about anything. I want to believe Raffy played clean and that the 97 Orioles weren’t a great chemistry experiment, but I want to believe in a lot of things. The dude cheated and is trying to hold on to some tainted B-12 excuse so that people believe in him still. Maybe he thinks interviews like this improve his HOF chances. Regardless, I just don’t believe it.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 4, 2009 5:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's sad
Even Tejada says he only injected Raffy w/ B-12. The only slight shred of questionable evidence is Conseco’s books, which are worth reading and wondering about.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 4, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What pisses me off in all of this is the sanctimonious sports writers.
There shouldn’t be any question as to whether Bonds, Palmeiro, Clemens, or McGuire are Hall of Famers. They have put up the numbers, they dominated the era in which they played. Case closed.
Cheaters have been inducted into the Hall of Fame since the VERY FIRST ballot. Ty Cobb was supposed to have colluded with Tris Speaker to throw a game for gamblers in 1919. The whole thing was pushed under the rug, so to speak; but from everything that I’ve read, there was pretty damning evidence out there that would have destroyed those two.
Gaylord Perry, an admitted spit-baller. Also in the Hall. Billy Martin once said that when he stood next to Perry, “It smelled like a drug store.”
The list goes on and on. How many Hall of Famers used amphetamines? How many doctored their pitches?
The Hall of Fame exists so as to honor excellence in baseball. We are not trying to canonize these men into sainthood. We are merely trying to give them the credit that they deserve. Any man who accomplishes what these men have on a baseball diamond deserves to be recognized in the Hall of Fame. Period.
And what really makes this issue all the more unbearable is that these same sports writers who are “outraged” by the “tainting” of our pure and innocent sport are the same ones who looked away during the 1998 Home Run race.
We all knew what Andro was. We knew that it wasn’t some herbal root that Mark McGwire had found in the Mountains of Peru to make his arms look like bazookas. Yet we were complicit. We enjoyed the show.
If I want to go to church, I know where to find one. It’s not at the baseball diamond.
The unfortunate side effect of baseball’s rich and fabled history is that we as fans are imbued with myths and illusions of a pure and innocent past. Yet we should know better. More importantly, the baseball writers, who are paid to cover this sport for a living, ought to know better.
Baseball has never been a “pure” sport. There have always been cheaters. And if we are going to invoke some sort of morals clause, all of a sudden, in order to bar the entrance of these great baseball players into the Hall of Fame, then we ought to get rid of the Cooperstown Museum altogether.
We aren’t here to beatify St. Barry and St. Clemens. We’re just trying to give credit where credit is due.
by Crank White on Jul 4, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
+1
"Daddy, is Hevan like BIRDLAND?"
"No son, Hevan is BIRDLAND."
by BENNY BIRDMAN on Jul 4, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
sure. why not? just let 'em twist in the wind for 40 years first
by thewaywardO on Jul 4, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spitters & corked bats & gambling are different in the public's mind
Because of all the “war on (some) drugs” propaganda that’s being shoved down everyone’s throats.
May be Raffy juiced, may be he didn’t. But one thing that’s a guaranteed lock is that whenever the Feds get involved in an anti-drug witch hunt, it’s really a disguised assault on domestic freedom. Not may be. Absolutely. For sure.
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
by sluggo 2.0 on Jul 6, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boog Powell once said, reportedly,
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 11, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raffy hit over 45 homeruns in a single season
In the 90s. Everyone who did it is pretty much guilty in my mind, other than a few players I don’t want to believe like Griffey and Chipper Jones.
The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST
by the fix is in on Jul 5, 2009 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So in other words
you believe that anyone who hts more than 45 dingers in a season (in the 90’s) is guilty of juicing?
Wow, talk about grouping all into one. If one is bad, they all are? Isn’t that where bigotry came from? Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?”
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 5, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well hey, this is where I make a sad, sad point in a big list
From 1996 to 2008: Barry Bonds (6), McGwire (3) , Sosa (3) , ARod (5 times) , Palmeiro (twice) , Manny (twice) , Juan Gonzalez (twice) , Glaus and Jose Canseco.
That’s a lot of steroid use in that group. That list is basically 100% steroid users.
Here’s a list of the rest of them, that haven’t been proven:
Ryan Howard 3, Luis Gonzales, Ken Griffey 3, David Ortiz 3, Jim Thome twice, Andruw Jones, Brady Anderson, Prince Fielder, Greg Vaughn , Albert Belle twice , Shawn Green, Todd Helton , Pujols ,L:arry Walker , Beltre , Bagwell , Galarraga , Castilla , Dunn ,Derek Lee , Carlos Pena , Alfonsio Soriano , Berkman , Chipper Jones , and Richie Sexson twice.
It’s a big list. Most are guilty, some are innocent. There are a lot of names on that last that I would hate to learn cheated.
The list comes from www.outsidepitch.com
The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST
by the fix is in on Jul 6, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i hate to see that
but its true. i’m pretty sure (nope, i have no valid evidence but its my own opinion) that the majority of the guys in that “unproven” list are/were juicing.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
We all realize that not every steroid makes you look huge. Look at A-Rod for example. But Palmeiro put up solid numbers ever since his first stint in Texas. He never had huge, gaudy numbers like A-Rod, McGwire, or Sosa. As Raffy said, he was extremely consistent. I too believe him. Not because, “you’re gonna believe what you want to believe”, but because he seems sincerely genuine.
Palmeiro never failed a drug test before that, nor again after he was suspended. Is Raffy guilty of being “reckless”, if that’s the right word? I think everyone would agree, yes. You should know what is being put inside your own body, and definitely not allow someone else to inject you with “vitamins”. So yeah, that part was his fault. But I truly think he’s telling the truth.
Now, there’s two sides to this story- Larry Bigbie was quoted as saying that when Palmeiro found out about Bigbie’s usage of steroids, he confronted him. Bigbie said that Raffy asked him how they made Bigbie feel, and told him that Palmeiro himself had never taken steroids before. Bigbie and Palmeiro were teammates only for 2004-2005. That should prove that Palmeiro never took them before, if he privately (or so he thought) asked a known roid user what they felt like and even told him that he hadn’t taken them before. I think a previous steroid user would know how they made him feel. Raffy didn’t.
The flip-side to that story is that he did ask Bigbie about them, which implies a curiosity there. Is it possible that Raffy was trying to find a source? Yes. But is it also possible that he was just asking Bigbie what they were like- just as a kid will ask his dad what beer is like, or his high school buddie what weed is like? Yes, that’s possible too.
Me personally, based on the consistency spread over 20 years, no signs of usage, passing drug tests his entire career except for 1 over an incident, and him not knowing what they were like… plus his honest reputation and seemingly sincere defense… I believe him too.
[IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q66/danmoore21/Orioles%20photos/Winningways2.jpg[/IMG]
by Camden_33rd on Jul 5, 2009 6:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll tell you who else never failed a published drug test....
Alex Rodriguez
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Brock Lensar (I know, wrong sport, but still….)
Doesn’t mean a damn thing.
And my last point: I’m supposed to believe that Raffy, so pure and innocent his ENTIRE career, is suddenly all, “Oh, Thanks Miggy, for this needle of unidentified chemicals that you tell me is B-12 that is not prescribed to me or even labeled properly. I’ll run into the bathroom and inject this myself from a needle that I’m not even sure is sterile! Thanks, buddy!”
Yeah, that TOTALLY happened. Not.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 5, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rodriguez did fail a drug test. It just wasn’t released to the public until this year. Bonds was pretty much the trailblazer in WHY baseball has drug tests. McGwire and Sosa both didn’t even want to talk about it in court (McGwire didn’t want to talk about the past, and Sosa wasn’t comfortable enough with his English to talk about it.) What do each of these guys have in common? All put up monster numbers, monster-sized bodies and side effects (of course Bonds, but remember Sosa taking a bat to the clubhouse stereo cause they didn’t play the music he wanted?… roid rage), and all 3 have more than sufficient evidence that they used steroids.
Rafael Palmeiro has none of that. Why isn’t everyone jumping all over Brian Roberts? He took steroids “once or twice” in 2003. He was caught once, and so was Palmeiro. Granted, Roberts admitted that he did. Palmeiro vehemently denies doing so intentionally. But because Raffy was a power hitter in the clean up spot, and Roberts is a doubles machine batting lead-off- and because Roberts admitted his guilt and Palmeiro has denied it- we can all forgive and forget with Roberts and not with Palmeiro? I’m not saying hold a grudge against Roberts. Not at all; he’s one of my favorites and he admitted his mistake. What I’m saying is, if we can move on and forgive Roberts, why can’t we believe Palmeiro when both players had steroid allegations just one time in their careers?
I still believe Palmeiro didn’t intentionally juice up. Especially at the age of 40 and 41. Why would he?
by Camden_33rd on Jul 5, 2009 6:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why aren't we pissed at Roberts?
Because he admitted it. He owned up to his mistake.
He didn’t go to Congress and shake his finger and then get popped for a positive test and then cry how he’s a poor victim of a bad teammate with a ludicrous story about tainted B-12 injections.
BRIAN ROBERTS TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for what he did, a concept that seems to elude Mr. Palmeiro.
Also, the reply button can be your friend if you let it.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 5, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
rofl to the reply button comment
also +1 to the roberts comment. i’m sure b-rob used roids more than once or twice but at least he came out and said it. raffy was a great player, but i can’t support any of these fools who keep denying that they were juicing.
by twistedlogic on Jul 6, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
presumed innocent?
I have a hard time presuming him innocent. The fact that MLB didn’t test major leaguers isn’t proof that they weren’t using. (In a way, this is why it was dumb for the Players Association to drag their feet…it was very shortsighted.) And even if he didn’t test positive in the 2003 survey testing just means that he wasn’t dumb enough to use before he knew was getting tested. In sum, I think pointing to “only” one dirty test doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Re: your Roberts point…well, this is why it’s good that there are multiple tests now. I have a hard time believing he didn’t use more than once or twice, but I believe that he is clean now because of the testing, and I don’t care all that much about admitting responsibility. I do give him credit for giving back to Baltimore. But I am more curious of failed drug tests than anything else.
FWIW, I still would like there to be testing done on a more frequent basis. I also worry about how quickly steroids stay in your system and what masking agents are used. But something is better than nothing…Raffy had the luxury of having no tests for the majority of his career.
Librarians are hiding something
by dfa on Jul 6, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Among baseball players B12 is a code word for roids. It’s possible that Raffy wasn’t up on his lingo when Tejada gave him B12 but I don’t buy it for a second.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 2:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, having been in the TEX clubhouse all those years
I can’t really believe he didn’t know the lingo. Juan Gone? The rest of that crew? Yeah, he knew.
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
by duck on Jul 6, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think being in any clubhouse should be enough to educate you on the informal meaning of B12, but that’s my 2 cents.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't matter whether I believe him or not
I still think he is to blame. It’s a business, as the players always tell us at contract time. So they are the managers of a multi-million dollar line of the business. That line is their body and mind and what they do with both on the field. If Raffy’s story is true, he didn’t manage the supply chain for his line of business, in an environment where everyone knew a lot of the supplies around the room were tainted. He is still responsible for that.
Personally, my gut says his story can’t be true and he was a willful cheater, not just a careless cheater. But nobody’s gut feelings for or against him matter.
Has there ever been a cooler Oriole than Eddie Murray? I mean, just straight up cool. Like a bad, suave dude. You know what I'm sayin'. COOL. SC 7/24/08
by 33 on Jul 6, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I truly do love, in any sport, the line of BS that athletes try to sell us. “It was my cousin who did it!” “It was Tejada who did it!” “I didn’t know what I was taking!”
You’re paid millions upon millions of dollars to play a game or fight twice a year or whatever. You know what’s going in your body. I’m not your mom, you’re not 7, and the lid isn’t off the cookie jar.
As for Palmeiro, well… if it moos and grazes and fails a drug test, it’s probably a cow on steroids, but I’m not saying I’m positive or wouldn’t be like “oh, awesome!” if he could somehow prove his innocence. Sadly all he has is throwing Miguel Tejada under a bus, getting forced to go home early from his final season of baseball because he was such a distraction and acted like a drama queen putting earplugs in on the on-deck circle (I mean come on), and, you know, a failed drug test.
by SC on Jul 6, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Lying to Congress is a damn crime
We’re just fans, and as far as we know, he did something immoral (in my opinion) and illegal.
I loved Raffy as a player, but publicly lying to the legislature shouldn’t warrant a birth to the highest honor in baseball.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's no evidence that he lied to congress or they would prosecute him for it.
And see my post above about Ty Cobb if you don’t think criminals belong in the HOF.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two wrongs don't make a right
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the 2nd wrong there?
Letting Ty Cobb into the HOF?
Isn’t just as wrong to apply criteria to current players that were not applied to past players?
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the argument is
“Hey, Ty Cobb was a really bad man and he got in,” then that shouldn’t support the notion that another immoral player like Raffy should make the Hall.
I’m also not a fan of this stance because Ty Cobb didn’t inject himself with stuff that would make him hit the ball harder on the diamond.
Obviously Cobb’s antics should be looked down upon, but Raffy, along with many others, altered his ability on the actual baseball field. To exacerbate his situation, he very publicly denied shooting up in front of the legislature of the United States.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not what you said though:
I loved Raffy as a player, but publicly lying to the legislature shouldn’t warrant a birth to the highest honor in baseball.
lol I mean if your argument is that he cheated that’s one thing, but that’s not what you said.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless
What I meant was that Raffy cheated on the baseball field, which is illegal and immoral, and then he lied to Congress.
Ty Cobb abused women and was a racist, but when it really counted, at least for baseball, Cobb did the right thing.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was an ass on the field as well
But Cobb didn’t try to unfairly get a leg up on the competition by chemically enhancing his own body.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
I’m not sure I agree that spiking people, attacking people, assaulting umpires, etc didn’t give him an advantage on the field.
And I’m not sure that Palmeiro’s steroid usage gave him and advantage on the field.
But I certainly think it’s unfair to overlook past players indiscretions (if you want to talk about chemical enhancement we can talk greenies, or we could talk Gaylord Perry’s blatant cheating by tampering with the ball – to me a much more significant form of cheating than being able to workout harder and longer) and hold them against current players.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think anyone, Perry/Raffy included, who has obtained an unfair competitive advantage on the baseball field should be given the extreme honor of being inducted into the HoF.
Ty Cobb was likely an imposing figure, but that doesn’t really hold any weight as large modern day batter like Ortiz and Howard are extremely intimidating, but physical demeanor is a legitimate tool whereas chemicals created in a lab aren’t.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Perry is in.
Are you going to boot him out? Otherwise it’s not fair. Can’t hold today’s players to a different standard than past players.
this is unrelated, but being intimidated by somebody’s size or hitting prowess is different than being scared of being physically injured by them.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it had been up to me
Perry wouldn’t be in.
I understand that there are already some pretty screwed up individuals in the Hall, but adding some more doesn’t improve the situation.
There is a philosophical disagreement between us, and that is perfectly fine; whereas you, I assume, think that Raffyy should be inducted due to the fact that there are already “cheaters” enshrined, I believe that in order to ameloriate the situation and maintain some kind of integrity, modern cheaters should be left out.
If in 30 years we find out that B-12 really didn’t do anything or Raffy was actually oblivious, then by all means, honor Palmeiro because his numbers warrant a berth.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right that we have a philosophical disagreement, but my argument is a little more complicated. My thinking is that even if you think Palmeiro cheated (which I’m not sure I do – not saying I don’t – just saying I’m not sure I do), I don’t see any way of determining whether a good percentage of the pitchers he was facing and hitters he was competing to put up numbers with were or weren’t also cheating. So, in my opinion, you either have to say that nobody from this era can be in the HOF or all of them can be in the HOF. It doesn’t seem fair to penalize guys who failed a test when you have no way at all of knowing whether people who haven’t failed a test were actually clean or if they just cleaned up for that round of testing or used a masking agent, or retired before the testing began, etc. It just seems too ambiguous to say that this guy can’t be in, but this guy can.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 6, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're saying
But as you know, we’ll never get all the names, so in my opinion, we have to go with what we know, and we know that Raffy played in the mud.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 6, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
steroids vs. lasik
What’s difference between steroids and lasik (other than their legality)? Both are performing enhancing *. But yet the public is scornful towards roids but not lasik.
- There is no hard evidence for either enhances one ability to hit a baseball but it least makes some common sense. Lasik improves your eyesight thus allowing you see the ball better while roids improves your muscle strength thus allowing you hit the ball further.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 6, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
THis is a fair point
esspecially when science is able to IMPROVE on 20/20 vision.
The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST
by the fix is in on Jul 7, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I was hoping somebody would tear down my argument. Not that I encourage steroid use, but I really don’t see it as this horrible thing that people make it out to be.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 7, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on that, trust me.
It’s just where I sit philosophically. For example,I believe weed should legal, like many out there. But I also believe heroin and cocaine should also be legal. Baseball is hardly different.
Steroids are medicine, and even if you use them, you still have to dedicate hours and hours in the weight room. Like all drugs, steroids can be used or abused. Steroids look really interesting on the over-55 population, and that’s something to keep in mind in an aging America. Steroids are here to stay.
Frankly, the current state of steroid use in baseball, is not unlike the war on drugs. We have two sides fighting against each other, when they could be profiting together. Right now the MLB is “winning” , but the steroid side is going to develop new drugs that cannot be detected. It’s just gonna go back and forth forever.
If steroids were 100% legal in America and in baseball, it would be safer, and use would be more responsible. Doctors would be advising players. There would still be plenty of players out there that wouldn’t take them. There would be more transparency.
It would no longer be a matter of “well he was juicing but so were the pitchers” or “yeah he only hit 320 home runs, but he did it all naturally, so he should go in the hall” (which is a debate we’ll be sure to have in 5-10 years) . If steroids were legal, it would just be a matter of each player doing what he believes will make him the best player, and hopefully being open about it.
It just…fucks with the statistics a little bit, and we all love the numbers.
The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST
by the fix is in on Jul 7, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm gonna have to say....
that steriods have a negative effect on the human body, whereas lasik doesnt NORMALLY have a negative effect.
by twistedlogic on Jul 7, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As someone who is scheduled to have lasik on Thursday, side effects are not uncommon but they’re suppose to clear up after 6 months.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 7, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
i meant in the long run, but that works too
by twistedlogic on Jul 7, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point. Long term lasik effects are not terribly commong from what I understand. Not sure about steroids. But I imagine with both, it’s how you use it which will greatly affect short or long term effects.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 7, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A baseball fan isn't interested in how the drug impacts the player negatively
Just that his performance on the field is unfairly improved.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 7, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, i’m just making the cuff remarks. but from a safety aspect, i don’t think there’s a huge difference. the competitive aspect though is what I’m really interested in.
"Your wife told you to play in New York.
Well, my wife told me you look like a dork." Boo Teixeira guys.
by birdman on Jul 7, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you wanna go that far,...then the so-called approved stuff that
MLB says is acceptable, is a huge advantage over what the players never had available to them way back when. With that in mind, where is the advantage now?
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on Jul 11, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't know how to formulate a solid argument
I mean, lasik is available to everyone and legal, though I don’t like using the law to judge the validity of an action; I’m a rebel like that.
But seriously, lasik would improve your performance on a baseball field, much like steroids. Although the eye surgery is available to everyone, steroids could receive the same treatment.
I guess the intention of lasik is really just to bring disabled players to a normal level and/or eliminate the annoyance of glasses/contact lenses, but even still, they can give you a leg up on the competition.
I’m hungover, but this is still a good point.
My best game plan is to sit on the bench and call out specific instructions like 'C'mon Boog,' 'Get ahold of one, Frank,' or 'Let's go, Brooks.' -Earl Weaver
by Baltimo on Jul 7, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting Manny/steroids article...
http://www.slate.com/id/2222246/
You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.
by sluggo 2.0 on Jul 6, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
good read, thanks for that!
"We're so bad right now that for us back-to-back home runs means one today and another one tomorrow." ~ Earl Weaver
by Graham71681 on Jul 7, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 























